Talk:Bryan Leach

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

There is a draft of this page. It was submitted, accidentally denied per the reviewing editor and moved to this redirect to publish. Publishing the draft wouldn't work since this redirect already existed anyway. Flyguyz93 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have concerns that this article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability standards for a stand-alone biography. Nearly all of the coverage cited here is tied directly to Ibotta’s business operations, funding rounds, and IPO. Major outlets such as WSJ, Bloomberg, TechCrunch, and Forbes mention Bryan Leach primarily in the context of reporting on Ibotta, not in independent, in-depth profiles of him as an individual. Awards such as Ernst & Young’s regional Entrepreneur of the Year and Glassdoor’s “Top CEOs” lists are routine business recognitions and do not in themselves establish notability. The article’s emphasis on his education, board service, and philanthropy also appears sourced from local press and institutional communications, which further suggests promotional slant rather than broad, independent coverage. Taken together, the sourcing does not demonstrate the kind of significant, sustained, and independent attention required under WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:CORP. The article currently reads more like a promotional biography than an encyclopedic entry about a subject with enduring notability. 185.159.5.122 (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2025 (UTC)Reply

This section is the most egregiously self promotional, and while I feel that this entire article should be removed, I think this section lends itself to being removed as a top priority. Terareconinc (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2025 (UTC)Reply