Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Smith (entrepreneur)


 * 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 delete. It may be that this person is a suitable subject for an article, but the consensus here seems clear that the current version is not that article. Yunshui 雲 水 09:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Aaron Smith (entrepreneur)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lacks WP:RS, clearly fails WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 07:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep – Like with many "entrepreneurs", coverage looks promotional and I can't really distinguish it from paid newspaper coverage:


 * The Australian Businessinsider might be the best source to demonstrate GNG. (Was also interviewed by this local entrepreneur podcast) – Thjarkur (talk) 19:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete final reference is definitley promotional and one sided. This is the page creators only contribs, another indication of self promotion. Teraplane (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete appears to pass GNG, sources are good, but all that means is that it can have an article, not that it should.
 * It smells promotional, and all sources are as much to do with the business as the founder, edging it close to WP:BLP1E. It also begs the question, "Is the business notable?". I'm settling on no. --Spacepine (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SIGCOV. A real BLP would have reliable sources covering his personal life, his college and career in some detail, major awards, and legitimate reasons for notability. I don't see any of that here. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the SMH and News.com stories appear from an identical source and use an image in common, anything after page in the SMH or The Age I'd have doubts about it being independent reports, bigger stories would tend towards being advertorials. The maybe a weak argument for saying the business is notable but nothing to support Aaron Smith as being notable independent of the business. Gnangarra 04:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as likely paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 16:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above, but most importantly failing WP:SIGCOV notability criterion. Note that the use of paid editors and lack of notability often go hand-in-hand as volunteers don't miss notable biographies forever. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.