Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Day (businessman)


 * 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. Tone 10:32, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Philip Day (businessman)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

For wikipedia article, subject must have significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to show notability. There is no evidence that there is significant coverage of this individual, nor any news or coverage to indicate this would be any kind of notable person (having money does not automatically make one notable. Singhaarav52 (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. We are not Wealthypedia. There is no indication that this person has done anything notable, except to make a lot of money. So what? Bearian (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. There still seems to be pockets of anti-business bias on Wikipedia. Regardless of what one might feel about billionaires, there are only 1,700 of them worldwide, so it is difficult to see how any of them would not be notable. In any event, simply clicking through to Edinburgh Woollen Mill would reveal that Day has been the CEO for at least 15 years of a company with almost 1,000 stores. The nominator only has 51 edits, but that's no excuse for not reading the instructions, "If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources." (see WP:BEFORE). With a self-proclaimed "over 64,000 edits", Bearian really should know better! Edwardx (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Only 1,700 worldwide? If that's not WP:MILL, I don't know what it would be. I'm not anti-business; I am a small businessman and have represented many businesses as an attorney. So I do know better! I don't see any anti-business bias here in Wikipedia - if anything, we're littered with business cruft. Owning a business is not the same as being or working as a business person. Bearian (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep. Notable billionaire businessman who owns brands millions of people wear. The article has been expanded since the nomination.Zigzig20s (talk) 13:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1, WP:SNOW only applies when consensus is so overwhelming that continuing to discuss the matter would be like a snowball melting in hell; 2, Asserting he's notable without significant coverage is a classic example of a tautology; 3, owning something does not magically impart some special attribute to its owner; 4, it's been expanded with trivia about a living person without being substantially improved. I'd like to hear from regulars at AfD such as and  before I'd go along. Bearian (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Easily meets GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please explain how. Bearian (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ,, and , you all are experienced editors. You all must know that you just can't !vote and not explain why someone is notable. Google searches reveal a lot of articles about other people with the same or similar name, so I don't blame the newbie for not doing a complete search. If the subject were really well-known in Great Britain, there would be more in-depth sources about him. I don't see it, as least not yet. Please, convince me, somebody. I used to have a reputation as an inclusionist. Then I saw lots of poorly-sourced articles about wealthy people that seem to have been written by PR types. I believe that somebody should not be able to buy their way onto a charitable platform. Bearian (talk) 11:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also tagging and, whom I trust even when we disagree. Bearian (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your comments puzzle me Bearian. There's plenty of coverage from a Google search for "Philip Day Edinburgh Woollen Mill" which discusses his activities in depth. I don't understand why you say he has bought his way in. I hope that's just poorly worded and not an accusation of bad faith. The article certainly doesn't read like a PR piece to me. In fact, I would imagine that the subject would rather it didn't exist since it details his fine for damaging ancient woodlands. No PR person would ever have included that. Nor the part about how he ordered his employees to vote for his daughter in a competition. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My comments don't puzzle me, and I didn't mean to impugn . I just don't think CEOs should automatically get articles on Wikipedia. When I first saw the stub it was just tiny a bit of a stub, although it has been expanded considerably. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC) P.S. For the record, a search under "Philip Day (businessman)" -Wikipedia shows 10 Ghits, none of which are notable and several of which are "mirror sites". Meanwhile, a search for "Philip Day" -Wikipedia reveals over 54,00 Ghits. So I did my basic homework. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure you did. A search for "Philip Day Edinburgh Woollen Mill" or "Edinburgh Woollen Mill Philip Day" would have made more sense. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Billionaire (in pounds that is - highly unusual) and owner of a very significant company. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am prepared to assume that billionaires are notable. As an argument based on the GNG, in a situation like this it's impossible to distinguish clearly the articles mainly about the business,  from those mainly about him.  DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 24 January 2017 (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.