Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julie Meyer (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. This article has basically been rewritten since the nomination. Liz Read! Talk! 19:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Julie_Meyer
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Page has been used heavily for both self-promotion and personal attack, with multiple sides repeatedly posting edits from non-neutral points of view. For example, the current article includes a "Legal Issues" section with separate sections on "strings of unpaid bills" and "failures to appear in court" for said unpaid bills, creating a duplicative issue. The page has been used as a laundry list of non-encyclopedic grievances directed toward a figure who, if she meets the notability standards of Wikipedia at all, is barely notable. In other instances, citations for some areas, such as Meyer failing to pay for investments for Dragons' Den, fail to disclose sufficient information to support the negative claim. Other claims include no citation at all, including that Ariadne Capital sold EntrepreneurCountry Global for a three million pound loss in 2016, which appears to be speculative. In addition, the page mentions Meyer's YouTube page being down, which is both not notable and also inaccurate (as of October 25, 2022, see https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFlLzUJUgt4MOAGmR2qXbIA) On the other hand, the page has also been used as a laundry list (i.e., non-encyclopedic content) of what Meyer is investing in, seemingly for purposes of self-promotion, as in the Viva Investments Partners section, which states that "VIP has direct investments in DRIVE Software Solutions Ltd, VASHI, a luxury jewelry company and Autonomous Data Collection (ADC) Limited. VIP has also invested in SPiCE VC, an Israeli fund investing in blockchain companies. Other funds include AnD Ventures, which supports Israeli technology startups, and GEM Funds, an American company supporting private investment in Opportunity Zones and real estate." Meyer's board memberships are also listed, which is not notable information. While the AfD tool is not intended to be used for cleanup, the extensive issues with this page and the tendency of the page to devolve into self-serving edit wars on both sides warrant removal to preserve neutrality on the topic. For example, previous edit logs include highly editorial comments such as "Ariadne Capital and Julie Meyer has a terrible reputation as a scam with great PR. Numerous litigation and judgement against the firm from suppliers and clients. Unverifiable investment record. Planted news articles and circular referencing" and "Removed Bluster and bullshit link as its clearly defamatory and been added to create a negative unbalanced pov," which illustrate the use of the page for confrontation, rather than for encyclopedic, informative purposes. Relisting comment: Relisting. Just noting that Articles for deletion/Julie Meyer concerned a different individual with the same name. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This AfD was incorrectly placed into the first nomination by, I have copied it here. No comment on merits of the AfD. – dudhhr (1 enby in a trenchcoat) talk contribs (he/they) 18:52, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women,  and Michigan.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep based on the sources used in the article, including the Telegraph and a few papers from Malta. Legal issues aside, she's covered for GNG. No opinion on the wiki article used to "attack" her; a cursory glance looks ok. Some coverage recently in the Law Society Gazette, so she's still being talked about these days (legal woes/issues happened in 2017); rest is gravy. Oaktree b (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * and this wiki page was the subject of at least three articles in the press. Some issues with a PR firm. I've re-read the article, it provides sourced quotations and seems neutral in tone. They may not like what it says about her, but "don't do the crime if you can't do the time/deal with the consequences". She's been convicted and sentenced, so it's helpful to have it noted in the article as it's fact now. Oaktree b (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Also covered recently in Blomberg Oaktree b (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Noting for the record: It appears that the first AfD under this title was about a different Julie Meyer. --Finngall talk  19:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - My initial impression is this article may be a candidate for WP:TNT and seems to have several hallmarks of WP:NPOV-questionable writing, including clearly non-neutral language, but that may be among the least-worst problems with this article. Beccaynr (talk) 08:38, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Your own recent fireworks of micro-edits amount to an attempt to do a WP:TNT single-handedly, making prior history almost irrelevant and difficult to restore. Just saying.
 * Deletion. Julie Meyer is not notable. She organises a couple of tiny investor seminars on Greek islands a year, is wanted by law enforcement in a couple of countries, and may have invested small amounts here or there. If any commercial reputation precedes her at all, it is for having sold First Tuesday at the height of the internet bubble, when people could sell hot air (and First Tuesday itself turned out to be worthless a year later). So this is not a case for WP:TNT. It's a case for deletion. There would always be shameless efforts of un-substantiated self-promotion, as there have been over the years, countered by the predictable reaction of other editors with (mostly) substantiated negative facts, followed by white-wash, and so on, back and forth and back and forth. Her only book is in the amazon.co.uk five-digit sales ranks, and not ranked or rated by amazon.com at all. All her Ariadne entities are dissolved, struck off, or otherwise defunct, having not returned any money to investors, and the companies public records show it. That's ok, it happens, but it doesn't make you a notable entrepreneur's champion or investor. The page was self-promotion from day zero, with predictable reactions. In short, a waste of time for editors on both "sides". SargeBK (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I edited the article to try to address unsourced and poorly-sourced information, non-neutral language, and coatrack material. Meyer appears to have written a notable book, and to have been the subject of sometimes tabloid-style coverage related to various contract disputes, and local coverage of court and regulatory proceedings in Malta. The recent suspended sentence for contempt of court has been appealed, as noted in the 2022 Bloomberg source cited in this discussion . There are various brief mentions (e.g. NYT, 2000, WSJ, 2001), a profile in the BBC related to her appearance on the online edition of Dragon's Den, and 2009 WSJ coverage about her post-Dragon's Den business ventures, with some interview. There is also a brief flurry of coverage in 2016-2017 related to a PR firm hired and then sued for issues related to editing the Wikipedia article. On balance, there appears to be weak support for WP:BASIC notability. Beccaynr (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - There is enough coverage about her and her legal issues from reputable sources to support notability. S0091 (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep cited sources in the article are enough to prove her notability. HCIhistory (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2022 (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.