Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Jessup (artist)


 * 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. ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 21:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Paul Jessup (artist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nowhere near to WP:NARTIST. References presented in this article talks mostly about Great British Teddy Bear company or Bobby Bear. There is nothing like in-depth coverage about the subject. Clearly fails on WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Google searches do not emit anything substantial except few controversies. Apart from that, if it is to believe then the subject does not consider himself to be notable enough to have an article at Wikipedia. Looking at the history of the article it seems that a user with relatively low edit count is trying to add controversial content to the article without solid references which has been reverted multiple times. Finally, there is nothing considerable enough that can help in demonstrating notability. Hitro talk 10:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak delete he is frequently quoted in the press. However that coverage is usually only a sentence or two. the intentions of a promotional editor are not relevant to any deletion reason.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:PROMO as admitted by the article creator here. Without the negative content the article is very misleading and should be deleted as a deceptive advert, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 17:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 *  on the fence  (please see updated below) - this looks clearly like a case of a promotional, perhaps even paid creation and then bad news hit the press and now a desire not to have a wikipedia bio anymore. Perhaps we should redirect to the teddybear company, those two multi million dollar deals with china seem worthy of reporting. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as per a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources -- I think this view of notability is unchallenged by anyone commenting here thus far. The article subject apparently preferring the article to be deleted is not a decisive factor, but a contributory one. Wikipedia does not retain articles for the purpose of punishing living persons -- or people who might have been associated with them -- for having previously tried to use Wikipedia in a promotional manner. MPS1992 (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * redirect to The Great British Teddy Bear Company - off the fence now. Those china deals and the company would be a better primary target. Govindaharihari (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom.JPL549 (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2018 (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.