Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Sykes


 * 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The result was   WP:WITHDRAWN. (non-admin closure) Mkdw talk 03:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Timothy Sykes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I came across this article while it was being PRODed. I was able to find coverage for him, enough to suggest that he was notable enough for it to be dePRODed. I'm not entirely convinced of his notability, but neither am I convinced that he completely fails WP:BIO. I'm bringing it to AfD for discussion and in the hopes that if other sources exist, that they can be found and added. I just feel that this is one of those cases where it's better off being discussed than PRODed. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If anyone can find some more good sources and prove notability, I'm more than willing to withdraw the nomination.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:24, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. See my comments below. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Not notable --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 09:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * . See my comments below. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. I do not think he is notable by any rational standard. But he clearly and unambiguously meets the GNG, with articles in the NYT, the NY Post,  New York, and a featured article on Reuters. If it were just the Post & NewYork, I'd say NOT TABLOID as our usual way of disposing of "human interest " stories, but I cant really say that with the other two.  There is more than ONE EVENT, so that common way for removing articles like this fails also.  Just to eliminate the possibility,  the book is not published by a major publisher, and is in only 66 libraries, so he is at any rate not notable as an author. So here's  one more piece of evidence that the GNG is obsolete. It was a clever idea, but it does not match reality. We commonly say "notability is not importance or significance." I say that to the extent it is not, it's meaningless.  DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Theopolisme ( talk )  23:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep He's received reliable press coverage over a few years. He's not Donald Trump, but he's notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Sykes has been the exclusive subject of several episodes in Wall Street Warriors as well as being highly notable in the penny stock market due to his feat of turning $12K into $1.6M. Policy in question is WP:NACTOR which states:


 * and


 * Sykes meets both and WP:NACTOR requires only one. iMDB in question is available at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2418506/. Fan base is evidenced by https://www.facebook.com/timsykesfans


 * &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem with that: it has to be multiple TV shows or appearances, and Wall Street Warriors is just one show. If someone is notable only for one show, then they redirect to that. The thing is, you have to show that his appearance in the show is overwhelmingly notable. Also, in order to show that he has a significant cult following, you have to show that with RS. Facebook is never usable as a reliable source to show notability. Neither is iMDB. The type of cult following that you'd have to show to pass that part of WP:NACTOR would be the type of cult following that Ed Wood or RHPS has. Very few people have that. I'm not trying to be difficult, just saying that not all of what you're giving really helps notability much. The appearance in WSW is the only thing in his favor. And again, IMDB and Facebook will never show notability as reliable sources. Facebook is one of those sources that isn't supposed to be used as a source ever and IMDB can only back up trivial sources and never shows notability. This is in part because it's a website that people can edit quite easily when it comes down to it. I'm not saying that Sykes or anyone else did it for him, but people have manipulated it in the past for other articles, which is why it's unusable in general now. When it comes down to it, IMDB is one of those sites that is almost considered to be unusable as anything other than an external link. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   17:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Usually when you link iMDB it is so that you can look further by searching for the appearances listed there in reliable sources. =P Anyway, Sykes has been on CNBC and Fox News as well. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's Reuters too. My advise would be to actually do a search before nominating for deletion. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * And Yahoo! &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Withdrawing. I want to definitely state that I'm not withdrawing due to Ahnoneemoos's sources. I'm not trying to be mean, just specify that IMDB and Facebook are not usable sources and are not what changed my mind in this specific case. I don't want you to go on to further AfDs trying to argue those as reliable sources. What swayed my mind is that Colapeninsula found a very nice Forbes interview that gives me just enough argument to show that he would at least squeak by notability guidelines.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   17:33, 11 January 2013 (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.