The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 18:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Joel Hyatt (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is nothing but vanispam. Person isn't notable, and not important enough for a redirect (to where?) either. Drmies ( talk) 23:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 00:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 00:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 00:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ^{Baby miss fortune} 00:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete a functionary and promoter with no significant impact. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Nothing here is an automatic pass of any of our "must-include" criteria for political figures, but the article isn't sourced anywhere near well enough to pass WP:GNG in lieu: two of the five are primary source press releases from companies he works with, which do not support notability; one is a Q&A interview on a blog in which he's speaking about himself, which is not a notability-assisting source; and of the two that are actually coming from reliable sources, one of them just namechecks his existence in the process of failing to be about him. Which leaves just one source that's actually doing anything on the "properly sourcing notability" piece, but one source doesn't carry that piece all by itself. Bearcat ( talk) 18:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Did anyone bother to search WP:BEFORE bringing this here? I came up with these in five minutes:
  • Warren, James (March 12, 1985). "Joel, Hyatt Settle Suit Over Name Of Legal Firm". The Chicago Tribune.
  • Seelye, Katharine Q. (May 2, 1994). "Close Race To Succeed A Senator From Ohio". The New York Times.
  • "CURRENT TV / On the Record: Joel Hyatt". SFGate. November 13, 2005.
  • "The Interview: Joel Hyatt on Sale of Current TV". NBC Bay Area. Jan 14, 2013.
  • Johnson, Ted (September 19, 2014). "Al Jazeera Files Countersuit Against Al Gore and Joel Hyatt". Vareity.
  • Clancy, Heather (January 11, 2017). "Al Gore's Former Partner Is Back With Another Web Venture". Fortune.
  • Lashinsky, Adam (February 24, 2017). "Al Gore's Former Business Partner Joel Hyatt Is Disrupting Things Again". Fortune.

I bet there are many other sources that could be easily found. - Eureka Lott 20:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Very nearly all of those sources suffer from the same problems I identified in my comment as the reasons why the sources already present aren't cutting it. SFGate and NBC Bay Area don't help, as they're Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself rather than being written about in the third person by somebody else — which makes them fine for verification of facts, but not able to assist in the process of establishing that he passes GNG. Chicago Tribune: not about him, but about his company — so it counts for something toward the notability of the company, but for exactly nothing toward establishing his notability as an individual. New York Times: purely WP:ROUTINE coverage of an unsuccessful campaign for office, of the type that every candidate for office always gets, so not establishing that his unsuccessful candidacy was somehow more notable than other people's unsuccessful candidacies. Variety mentions his name, but is not about him. And of the two Fortune articles, the first one counts for something, but as the only source you've identified that helps his notability at all it doesn't help enough all by itself — while the second is just a blurb, so it counts for nothing. So no, you're not showing what it would take. Bearcat ( talk) 21:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Plenty of nontrivial coverage of the subject in mainstream news-media, and Eureka Lott just gives a small sample above. More than enough to pass WP:GNG. Nsk92 ( talk) 22:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.