Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freddie Figgers (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) firefly  ( t · c ) 08:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Freddie Figgers
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Sources don't meet the standard for WP:BIO nor is the subject exactly notable and share concerns about WP:NPOV. I've searched for alternative sources regarding the subject but all seem to be of the same calibre SuperiorWalrus (talk) (contribs)  05:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  SuperiorWalrus (talk) (contribs)  05:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. I came to the article after reading this BBC article about Figgers, published today or yesterday (I wish they would stop that "hours ago" thing). I'll do a fast rewrite using it, now. It makes a good case for notability. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC) I've now rewritten it. I threw out 2 press releases, an issuu version of a self-published periodical, and a smelly aggregate site, but among what remains we were already citing another extended article on him from a completely adequate source, ABC (and from a different year). Passes GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep . Figgers was also the author of a piece published in The Guardian last year which is not currently cited in the WP article - you can see it here. JezGrove (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep . For reasons explained above. I visited Wikipedia having read that article wanting to know more about him. Quite clearly sufficiently notable. Julien Foster
 * Keep . All the reasons explained above, BBC citation, etc., plus there is a need to have this article exist and grow. My feeling is that I'd be hard pressed to think of one reason it should not exist. Alan Coles (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. He gets articles written about him based on stuff claimed in this wiki article, and then those news articles later become the sources for the wiki. Like xkcd Citogenesis. So nothing here can really be trusted, and it's mainly a vehicle for him to get press. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27409591 Or if the article stands, it should be updated to not just advertise his scams. 2A01:799:D20:6100:E934:4A18:4D1B:9DF9 (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * IP editor, those are serious accusations per our policy on living people that require better sources than a "Hacker News" forum. If the article is kept this time (I am not an admin so I can't see the earlier version that was deleted to compare it and its sources), Wikipedia needs to wait for mainstream press coverage to mention any such criticisms. For reference, our "reliable sources" rule. Can you find any such coverage of, for example, the controversy over the third recent cellphone model that we could add now? Yngvadottir (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. I really wanted this to be true as it is a very inspiring story of a young entrepreneur overcoming the odds and also giving back to his community, but there are just too many inconsistencies in the press coverage for me to feel comfortable keeping this. For instance, this article from the Atlanta Black Star in 2016 says his company is worth $2.2 million, which sounds about right for an up-and-coming small business with a solid local consumer base. However, the Washington Post reports that "he said [the company] was appraised in 2017 to be worth more than $62 million" (emphasis mine). All subsequent sources seem to be just re-reporting that figure as fact, and the (alleged) size of the company seems to be a big driver of the subject's press coverage and notability, even though the Post clearly indicates the source of that number is him. Did he grow the company to 30x the size in just one year? Privately-held companies are not subject to the transparency and disclosure requirements of public companies, so that appraisal could literally be based on anything (Trump famously appraised the brand value of his name at $4 billion).


 * A number of other claims don't really past the "sniff test" either. For instance he claims a technology that can charge a phone at 5 m--but just by the inverse square law, if you are transmitting enough energy to charge a phone at 5 m, you would cook a person standing next to the transmitter. If this was feasible, why aren't much bigger companies doing it already? Likewise, he says his phone is made in America--a number of (non-RS) phone reviewers (including one who has since disclosed that he was paid by the company for a positive review) have noted that the phone is simply a rebranded Oukitel phone. Given the cost and infrastructure involved in manufacturing a brand new phone, it would be very incredible to me if a $2.2 million privately-held company--or indeed even a $62 million company--were able to manufacture its own phone, in-house, in America.


 * It is clear that Mr Figgers is a savvy small-business owner with good ideas, but a lot of this coverage seems to be the product of a clever media marketing campaign and I think we need to be very cautious here to not further it via citogenesis. 156.111.111.70 (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. You make good points, IP editor, but about Figgers Communication, not about whether Figgers himself is notable. In rewriting the article, I deliberately left out all business specifics like the purported value of the company, both because as you say they were based on his own statements and because they would make it seem promotional. When I looked again at the article on the company, I saw it has now been redirected to the article on him, which I think is wise; the coverage is of him, plus it seems he actually has several companies. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think that doesn't really resolve the problem though--the issue at hand is that the subject's notability is deeply tied to the company's notability, and the press coverage of both is itself questionable due to the subject's own marketing campaign, possibly helped by a dose of citogenesis here. Would we ordinarily consider the owner of a $2 million local business notable? Probably not. But then we have to ask, why has the subject received significant press coverage if the company is not notable? If we remove the dubious claims about the company (which these sources might well have picked up from Wikipedia), then this coverage basically amounts to a human interest story, of the sort that reputable papers frequently run about ordinary people, centered around Mr Figgers' genuinely inspiring backstory. But I don't think the subjects of human interest/inspiring backstory articles are generally considered notable even if they have been written about in reliable sources. 156.111.111.70 (talk) 08:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, they are. "Written about in reliable sources" is precisely the general notability guideline. I think you're assuming everything/everyone needs to qualify under some other criterion, such as excellence or prominence. Those specialty criteria are based on, for example, the importance of a person's job (military rank, governmental position, starring roles ...) or distinction within their profession (holders of major professorships, Nobel Prize or Olympics winners, founders and CEOs of huge companies ...), but even so the professors and the CEOs usually require some extended coverage such as biographical books and articles, because "GNG" is our default criterion. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:HEY thanks to Yngvadottir's improvements. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:13, 14 June 2021 (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.