Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Pearson (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   no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Mark Pearson (entrepreneur)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable, fails WP:BIO and clearly PR trash Phatwa (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Query - clearly badly written but are you suggesting that the subject is not notable even with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? Stalwart 111  02:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing then? Stalwart 111  01:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:BIO, MyVoucherCodes is according to Alexa the 8th largest voucher code site in the UK, doesn't warrant an article simply because the owner has a PR firm working for him. 86.151.48.68 (talk) 15:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC) — 86.151.48.68 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Weak Delete maybe merge with Vouchers article as addendum. 94.0.231.65 (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC) — 94.0.231.65 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * delete -- I do not think a company with 100 employees is likely to be notable, and that is all he has done. If there is a company page, we might have merged something there. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - it doesn't really matter whether the company has started has 10 employees, 100 employees or 100,000 employees. What matters is whether there is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources - 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. That the article needs some editing to ensure compliance with WP:MOS and to prevent it from being/becoming a PR hack job is a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM problem. The immediate attention from two SPA IPs (one of which seems to be connected to the nominator here) suggests this nomination is based on something other than trying to improve the project. Stalwart 111  01:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:GNG, which is the relevant guideline. Statistics such as number of employees or current popularity of a website would only indicate whether a business is likely to be notable, not determine whether it is or not, and this article isn't even about the business. Peter&#160;James (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2013 (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.