Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Martin (Businessperson)


 * 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 05:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Philip Martin (Businessperson)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a businessman, with no claim of notability strong enough to grant him an automatic inclusion freebie just for existing, and nowhere close to the depth of sourcing required to clear WP:GNG. Of the four references cited here, #4 verifies tangential facts about his company while entirely failing to mention Martin's name at all in conjunction with it; #3 is a Q&A interview with Martin in which he answers deeply probing questions like "Are you a saver or a spender?" and "Do you haggle over prices?"; and #2 is a blurb in a newspaper's local news section for the area in which Martin lives. #1 is really the only source here that might actually count for something toward getting him past WP:GNG — it's paywalled, so I can't verify how substantive it is, but even if I give it the benefit of the doubt it takes more than just one GNG-eligible source to pass GNG. As always, Wikipedia is not a free public relations platform or an alternative LinkedIn: the fact that a company has an article does not in and of itself automatically translate into a notability freebie for a separate article about its CEO in the absence of better sourcing than this, particularly when even the company's article (created by the same user) has been flagged as raising possible conflict of interest suspicions too. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   16:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   16:14, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nom. No evidence that meets WP:GNG, or related corporate or generic biographical criteria. (As noted, a single "pen pic" in the Business Post doesn't amount to evidence of notability). Further, beyond the "he was born and went to school" text in the "early life" section, the rest of the article is substantive replication of the text of the article on his company. At *best* therefore this should be merged/redirected (per WP:OVERLAP). But, my own recommendation is for deletion (not least given the WP:PROMO, WP:NOTLINKEDIN, and other tonal issues noted by the nom). Guliolopez (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not much to add to the thorough nomination statement and the previous !vote. It is worth noting that the article's creator was recently blocked for undisclosed paid editing. --bonadea contributions talk 07:27, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I also do not see how this person satisfies WP:GNG. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:BARE. There is an in-depth piece and two more tangential pieces already cited in the article. Bearian (talk) 02:18, 2 May 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.