Talk:Robert Lorsch

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

no consensus, 27 October 2016, see discussion.
no consensus, 28 December 2012 (UTC), see discussion.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Notability

This article has been proposed for deletion because of a lack of notability. The relevant guidelines for this are Wikipedia:Notability (people). As you will read under Basic criteria, the key is secondary sources. Sources written by Lorsch, or by anybody close to him, do not count towards notability. (Such references are still valuable, but don't count towards notability.)

At the moment I see five references, of which three are secondary sources. The Forbes reference is excellent. The California Science Center reference is only about the Lorsch Pavilion, and not about Lorsch (the article is not about the Pavillion). The Huffington Post reference looks good. For example, is there a reference in a secondary source such as the City of Los Angeles about “Bob Lorsch Day”?

Hope this helps, HairyWombat 01:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of a previously deleted article and possible editor conflict of interest

This article was previously deleted as non-notable and was recreated by an editor who only edits/creates articles about Robert Lorsch and his wife Kira Reed. This editor may be closely related to these two subjects and would therefore have a Conflict of Interest. OccamzRazor (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with what you have written above, you also tagged the article with {{Primary Sources}}. There are currently 9 references in the article, of which 7 are secondary sources (Forbes, Los Angeles Times, California Science Center, and The Huffington Post). Unless you object, I will remove the {{Primary Sources}} tag as it is inappropriate. HairyWombat 01:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes bio is a primary source as that website, like many other other financial websites, merely publishes CEO bios, salary and other information contained in the company's annual report filed with the SEC. Much of the article's content is based on this bio written by Lorsch himself as well as unsourced content that may constitute {{Original Research}}. Therefore, I believe the {{Primary Sources}} tag should remain. OccamzRazor (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought ... With his experience in sales and advertising, it seems highly possible that each one of these secondary sources is more accurately sourced, originally, by either an internal PR department or contracted PR firm responsible for developing the public image of MMRGlobal, Inc. MMRGlobal, Inc. is a powerful organization seeking a valuable patent portfolio. I have been doing research into their patents and intellectual property, and the associated lawsuits, and nothing proposed by OccamzRazor is too far out of line. Though we really can't know for sure, the page does seem a lot like a conglomerated PR release. This is my opinion, and only my opinion. I agree with OccamzRazor. Paravis (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]