Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Milling-Smith


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Patrick Milling-Smith

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company person. I don't see anything here which meets WP:NBIO. There's a large number of references, but most of them are trash not useful (adweek, etc). The ones that looked promising (New Yorker, Daily News), turn out not to even mention Milling-Smith. My own searching only found WP:PRIMARY sources.

The article itself is written in a highly promotional style. It's probably WP:G11 material, but bringing it here to get a cleaner decision.

Previous AfD was closed as redirect to Smuggler (production company), (which has since been deleted, and is currently under review). The redirect was quickly undone by an IP, which if anybody noticed at the time would have justified being reverted under WP:G4. As mentioned there, this seems to be part of a wp:walled garden of promotional pages. Originally written by a user who has since been banned as a spam-only account. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO. Nom is correct about those sources, some of which don't even mention the subject at all. SPAs editing to make it even more promotional don't help the case, either. By policy and design, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Additionally, that's quite the history of pop-up SPA editing in the walled garden articles. One of those editors recently disclosed a company connection on their talk page, so maybe that's progress of a sort. Bakazaka (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not sure Adweek is "trash". It seems to be a long-time industry publication, similar to Insurance Journal in my world.  Like many other trade journals the quality has probably devolved over the last 5 years, but a significant piece in Adweek may confer notability.  Note I am *not* commenting on the notability or salvage-ability of this particular topic.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 20:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I worded that badly. I didn't mean to imply that Adweek, per-se, was a trashy publication.  But, the adweek reference doesn't even mention Milling-Smith, so it doesn't do anything to show he meets WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Got it, and I completely concur. (re the not mentioning the topic, not that you worded it badly, I just wanted clarification.  Ah @%%H!! I'll stop digging now....>    78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 22:28, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. Part of a promotional walled garden, including Articles for deletion/Smuggler (company); Articles for deletion/Here Be Dragons (company); and Draft:DIVISION7. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. No individual notability. Very promotional. Britishfinance (talk) 23:18, 9 February 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.