Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Pearson (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   no consensus. The two arguments were a bit vague; either claiming he is notable or that the article's all gossip, without proof. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Pearson (businessman)
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable living person. A few newspapers repeated his unsupported claim to be a billionaire interested in buying out some troubled Irish companies. It's an amusing little cautionary tale for journalists, but the man himself is not notable — fantasists are not rare — and coverage was limited to a few investment-speculation pieces and local-news coverage. The Wikipedia article itself may originally have been started by its subject as part of his self-mythologising; though, to be fair, the news coverage in Oct-Dec 2008 predates the article creation in Feb 2009. I replaced the uncited claims with cited ones, but since the cites are to credulous articles, that's not much better. The article risks being a magnet for vandalism: either continued fantasies by the subject or jokers, or spiteful mockery of him or those he took in. jnestorius(talk) 16:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, you're right that he's not notable as a billionaire (because he isn't), but he may be notable as an eccentric/news item/fabulist. And lots of good pages are vandalism magnets. Hairhorn (talk) 16:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I accept that vandal-proneness is not itself a reason for deletion; but in a borderline BLP I think it might tip the balance. In this case I think the balance is clear enough: he's not notable in that he didn't fool many people, he didn't fool them for long, there was no fallout from his stories, and there has been little publicity about his unmasking. jnestorius(talk) 16:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient sources for ntoability. The coverage seems to include national newspapers.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe that the sources are suitable. There is even mention in The Independent which includes a mention of this Wikipedia article. ISD (talk) 14:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the problem is not with the sources. I know this, I added them all myself. The problem is that the subject is not notable. Not everything reported in a newspaper is worth recording in an encyclopedia. And the mention of a Wikipedia article is grounds for extra caution, not for extra notability. jnestorius(talk) 15:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think he is clearly notable for the fact that he's conned so many newspapers. The Independent article is in my opinion definitely a reason for the article to be kept. It's quite a good lesson in the fact that there aren't really any reliable sources! The article does certainly need a lot of work in light of the fact that he is clearly not a multi-millionaire. I'll try to do some. Smartse (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Newspapers get things wrong every day, and other newspapers mock them the next day. What's so special about the Independent article? It's largely a repetition of the current Wikipedia article. If Pearson makes it into journalism textbooks as "a good lesson", then we can have an article; till then, it's original research to regard him as such. jnestorius(talk) 20:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * DeleteCollection of rumors. The only solid facts are that he ran a small business, but pretended to have money. Neither part of that is notable. BLP violation, reporting gossip. DGG (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC
 * DeleteMmm this is an interesting one. There is some notion that it should be kept as he has become part of the idea of fame for fame's sake. It's a mad tale and good fun. But, I'd have to agree that being a fantasist probably shouldn't be enough to qualify somebody for a entry in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurcher2k (talk • contribs) 20:26, May 24, 2009 — Lurcher2k (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Where is the beef here?  This is tabloid flavor-of-the-day rumors stuff.  Potential BLP issues concern me, and if we prune that out, nothing is left. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2009 (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.