Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Philip Stephenson


 * 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

G. Philip Stephenson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a likely WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Edwardx (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Edward, you mentioned this: "Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online." A google search for Philip Stephenson would produce independent coverage results. There is another Philip Stephenson on Wikipedia, which is an entry for a contemporary baseball player, hence the differentiator was needed by adding the "G." initial. There are several articles linked on the Wikipedia page from reputable, independent sources, such as the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Financial Times, etc., as well as links to prestigious organizations, such as National Geographic Society and Ocean Exploration Trust where the subject serves as a board member, advisor, and/or donor. Many other philanthropists have wikipedia pages (i.e. Ted Waitt, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Waitt; Michael Bloomberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Bloomberg and many others). This one too is factual, accurate and sourced according to guidelines. When it first accepted the entry several years ago, Wikipedia said this: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people." Should you feel that more or different links and sources need to be included please suggest appropriate edits or additions that you as an independent Wiki editor see as necessary. Deleting the page serves no purpose as it does not violate any terms of use. Would you please consider withdrawing your Afd?

Thank you. Ebabau (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC) Thank you, Ebabau. All of this will be evaluated during the course of at least one week. One thing that does concern me is that you appear to have a conflict of interest. The only articles that you have been involved with are G. Philip Stephenson and Petit Saint Vincent, an island of which Stephenson is the majority owner. Can I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and consider making a declaration? I have left a message below accordingly. Edwardx (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Edwardx. I see and appreciate your suggestions and the keen interest you have in this topic. I am not affiliated with the Petit Saint Vincent resort and have no input in promoting it. I am, however, involved in nonprofit marine conservation work, namely coral restoration and marine protected areas in the Eastern Caribbean. As such, the perceived COI you mention is rather cause-related and not determined by a particular place or person. All the information in the entry is factual, sourced from reputable publications, neutral and not intended to promote any particular subject, and meets Wikipedia's core content policies WP:COPO and WP:CCPOL of Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) Verifiability (WP:V) and No original research (WP:NOR). To avoid any appearance of impropriety, I will follow your advice and include a "connected contributor" disclosure to the article, since my core interest and connection to the topic is related to nonprofit environmental conservation work. Ebabau (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Edwardx. Following your advice and the guidelines you kindly shared, I added this declaration to the page in question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:G._Philip_Stephenson#Connected_Contributor_COI_declaration Hopefully, this clarifies the connection and satisfies the question. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions and thank you once again for your keen interest. I am not as well versed as you are on Wikipedia editing, nor do I have the time to allocate to being an editor. Most of my time is spent underwater and working with NGOs and local communities to try to save and restore what is still possible to save of our degrading marine environment. Cheers Ebabau (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebabau (talk • contribs) Ebabau (talk) 18:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Deleteper Above. --- ✨Lazy Maniik✨  13:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC) Sockpuppet of blocked user . ✗  plicit  14:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Curbon7 (talk) 05:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV based on the sources in the article. Not sure how the nominator can make the claim that these aren't significant. He is the primary subject of The Washington Post article which covers his work with the Rompetrol petroleum company and the subsequent criminal investigation of the company in which Stephenson was involved. There's actually quite a lot of criticism of him and his company in the TWP article which could be used to expand the article. I would imagine he would have been the subject of press articles in Romanian given the high profile nature of the criminal charges being lobbied at Stephenson and his company. Likewise he is the primary subject of the Houston Chronicle piece for his work as a restaurateur. I would consider both of these independent significant coverage of the subject. The rest is mostly trivial coverage (i.e. passing mentions) but altogether I think collectively it leans to the keep side.4meter4 (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - After reviewing the sources, he appears to meet general notability guidelines, and thus the article should not be deleted. Fieari (talk) 07:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep WaPo and Houston Chronicle coverage in addition to other smaller mentions are enough to meet WP:BASIC. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 13:06, 3 November 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.