Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Evans (hotelier)

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. A redirect can be discussed and created separately if deemed useful. Sandstein 20:36, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Evans (hotelier)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete The only reason this article is here is because he has a famous spouse. Not notable. Every source listed has wife's name in title and primary article is about her. No explicit sources about Billy Evans. Andrew nyr (talk) 01:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All but one of the sources prominently mentions his wife or fiancee (whichever it is). His MIT reference lists his minor college accomplishments. Also, he's not a hotelier, his grandparents are. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarityfiend, you are an experienced contributor, so surely you must have encountered other individuals who are related to someone more famous, yet who still measure up to GNG themselves?
  Consider Elizabeth Windsor, current Queen of England, and her many descendants, and cousins, those who are numbered in the official list of succession... We don't shoehorn them all into the article on EW - those who measure up to GNG themselves get standalone articles. It doesn't matter whether an RS mainly covers the Queen, provided those RS also contain meaningful details about her descendant or cousin.
  Almost all of the first two dozen individuals on the UK list of succession have standalone articles, because they measure up to GNG. The last time I took a good look, approximately half the third and fourth dozen people on the list had established enough notability for a standalone article, but only about 10-15 percent of the next hundred had established notability.
  Some of the Queen's cousins may get routine mention in the UK press, but always of the same kind of passing mention, no detail mention. But, if they get coverage when they are sent to ceremonially cut a ribbon at a Hospital, or they assume the sponsorship to a charity, that kind of coverage starts to measure up to GNG - even if every article that talks about them also mentions the Queen.
  Now the central argument in your delete opinion is that (most) articles that talk about Evans also talk about Holmes. This is not the way we evaluate the notability of other people who have more famous relatives, like EW's descendants and cousins. Why should we discount that Evans has enough coverage to pass GNG, just because his wife is more famous than he is?
  If you don't agree that the independent details we know about Evans measures up to GNG, how about listing what you think is missing? If you can't list what further elements you think RS have to supply for him to measure up to GNG, why shouldn't we take that as an acknowledgement Evans does, after all, measure up to GNG? Geo Swan (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a just plain non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, doesn't seem notable in his own right. Coderzombie (talk) 07:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Coderzombie, could you please only leave opinions based on our policies and conventions, and not on your gut feelings? RS wrote about Evans, in detail. Now you personally might think he is not notable, and if you were a newspaper editor, you would spike all your newspaper's articles about him. Well, you are certainly entitled to hold a personal opinion about Evans notability. However, I suggest, that since you are not a newspaper editor, your personal opinion of his notability shouldn't matter one whit, when actual newspaper editors allowed enough significant details about Evans to be published for him to measure up to GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 12:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elizabeth Holmes. If he's frequently mentioned in connection with his wife, but nothing else, a redirect seems justified. Smartyllama (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Smartyllama, you have offered a conditional opinion. Well, if you check the RS out there, you will see that the coverage of Evans goes far beyond his connection to his wife. Many RS cover each of them more or less equally, while others like this article, https://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-everything-about-fiance-william-billy-evans-2019-3 mainly cover Evans. While 3 of the first 5 paragraphs are mainly about Holmes, this is followed by 10 paragraphs solely about Evans. Two more paragraphs of the remaining dozen or so are about Holmes, and the remaining are about both of them. I don't think anyone could read this article and not conclude that it was mainly about Evans. Things we learn from it, that are not about Holmes, at all?
1. Evans is heir to the Evans Hotel Group;
2. Evans was an athlete at MIT;
3. Evans got a scholarship to study in China;
4. Evans learned Chinese, in China, and, following his graduation, and before he even met Holmes he tried to start his own medical firm, to bring rich Chinese individuals to the United States, to provide them with tailored "boutique" medical care;
5. Evans was a "brand manager" at Red Bull;
6. Evans also worked at LinkedIn;
7. Evans was close to his boss, at Luminar, and other employees accused him of serving as his boss's "secret police".

This is only one of many publications that published articles entitled something like "What do we know about Holmes fiance/husband", that then went on to publish details of his life that have nothing to do with Holmes.

So, what if the conditional premise of your opinion isn't correct? Geo Swan (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama I can easily agree that a redirect is appropriate here, I just cannot see notability here when only one article on Business Insider gives in depth details on the subject and the title literally has his wife's name in it. I support a redirect. Andrew nyr (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Evans clearly measures up to GNG himself, even if he has a more famous spouse. Geo Swan (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Did you not read WP:GNG? "
  - Any Biography
1. The person has received significant recognized awards or honours.
2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."

It then goes on to say "Non-valid general criteria
That a person has a relationship with a well-known person is not a reason for a standalone article; see Relationships do not transfer notability. However, the person may be included in the related article. For example Brooklyn Beckham and Jason Allen Alexander."

Thanks, Andrew nyr (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew nyr: Given the part "However, the person may be included in the related article," I ask you to consider whether a redirect is a viable alternative to deletion. Smartyllama (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew nyr The first bulleted point in WP:GNG starts: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content..."
Well, we have many RS that wrote about Evans, in detail. The second half of that first bulleted point says a topic, like Evans: "...does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Evans is, himself, the main topic of some of the RS. Other RS devote more paragraphs to Holmes, than to him, while still covering him in a meaningfully detailed manner. I think you make a serious mistake to discount the RS that talk about him in detail.
You are absolutely correct, that merely being related to a notable person does not make an individual notable, which is why most of Elizabeth Windsor's second and third cousins do not merit standalone articles. But, as I pointed out, her descendants have sufficient significant coverage to merit standalone articles, as do many of her first cousins.
Please be serious here. Wikipedia is not a battleground. You have an obligation to consider the possibility you may have made a mistake. If you have genuinely reviewed the available RS that talk about Evans, and you still genuinely think that some element is missing, so he falls short of measuring up to GNG, it should be a simple matter for you to go on record and state what that missing element is. Okay, what is it?
FWIW the passage you quoted, above, is not from GNG. It is from the essay Wikipedia:GNP Generally notable people. In the general hierarchy of wikidocuments, policies generally carry the most weight. Guideline and style guides come next. Essays generally come last, although some essays are referenced so often they might as well be policies. WP:ATA is an example of a very widely accepted essay. WP:GNP on the other hand has only been read 3300 times, in the last five years, while WP:GNG has been read 925,000 times. Geo Swan (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.