Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Kelly ( philanthropist)


 * 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 01:22, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Sean Kelly ( philanthropist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO; searching up "Sean Mike Kelly" excluding Wikipedia comes up nothing but other people. Article was created by an editor who games the system to become autoconfirmed so they can make this article. theinstantmatrix (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The Entrepreneur source is an opinion piece from a contributor, which is not reliable. The HuffPost piece is also a contributor article, and the MyCentralJersey piece is written by an "editorial intern". Other sources appear to be passing mentions, unrelated to the individual himself, or not independent from the person (including interviews). —  Newslinger  talk   23:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is my analysis on each sources listed as of revision ID 854659736:


 * social network link, so not a reliable source.
 * opinion piece. briefly mentions Kelly there but is not the main subject.
 * opinion piece. Kelly is not the main subject there.
 * opinion piece. no mentions of Kelly.
 * how can a video even be used as a source? and once again it doesn't mainly talk about the subject.
 * opinion/contributor piece of HuffPost, as pointed out by editor Newslinger, so not a reliable source.
 * written by an editorial intern, per Newslinger, meaning an another opinion piece.
 * talks about Russell Westbrook. and I don't see any mentions of Kelly there.
 * talks about JaVale McGee showing off his jerseys. once again, no mentions of Kelly there.
 * yep. another HuffPost contributor/opinion piece. no mentions of Kelly there.
 * a blog guide on how to use instagram stories. that's it.
 * opinion piece. even claims so on the bottom of the page that they "publish pieces written by outside contributors with a wide range of opinions, which don't necessarily reflect our own."
 * opinion piece by a contributor. basically talking about why some Instagram accounts make millions while others don't.
 * links to his profile at Kivo Daily, where he is a contributor.
 * same thing as above.
 * a podcast. i don't even understand how can a podcast be used as a source.
 * unreliable primary interview by a founder. per Newslinger, interviews are not reliable, because that means the author of the source becomes affiliated with the subject.
 * unreliable primary interview by a contributor.
 * unreliable primary interview.
 * unreliable source. doesn't even have anything on there, besides the photo.
 * unreliable primary interview.
 * unreliable primary interview by a founder.


 * and that's that. theinstantmatrix (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - no reliable sources exist, period, therefore, he fails WP:V. He seems to be quite run of the mill and up and coming as they say. Bearian (talk) 13:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete There are a lot of links, but none of them support or constitute a claim of notability nor could I find anything additional in a Google search to substantiate a claim. Alansohn (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete GNG not met. More nonsense from an extremely obvious, undeclared paid contributor. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails GNG guidelines and only brief mentions in sources. Tinton5 (talk) 02:25, 16 August 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.