Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Morgan (entrepreneur)

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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:37, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Morgan (entrepreneur)

[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)

I really do not think that possibly being kicked by Eden Hazard is a credible claim of notability, and there's nothing else. Rich kid who has started a vodke company? Yawn.TheLongTone (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC) TheLongTone (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Wales. AllyD (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Subject appears to have sufficient coverage from reliable secondary sources to ring the WP:BASIC bell. Not impressed by the article length and frankly I would not have bothered creating an article about this individual. But yeah, I think it passes our criteria, if barely. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Ad Orientem. Subject is founder and owner of world famous vodka company and named on Sunday Times Rich List 2022 besides being known for his ballboy incident. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Das osmnezz: I did not find his name anywhere on the so called rich list. One of the sources in the article says he's worth 40m, the rich list with 250 names goes down to 650m (meaning that if he's on the rich list, so am I, as long as you go down the list long enough!). Rkieferbaum (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this Times article literally says he is 24th on the Rich List. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So having rich parents makes one notable? God help us all.TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And your idea of world famous is clearly different from mine.TheLongTone (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone No. Notability is established by meeting the criteria in WP:BASIC. "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Whether or not we like the subject of the article is neither here nor there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no feelings about the unremarkable subject, except that he is clearly not in any way either interesting or, more importantly given the huge number of articles on kick-the-ball artistes, notable. TheLongTone (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete contrary to the article, he's not won the UK's richest people (his net worth is £40 million according to [1], which is way short of the £11 billion needed to be in top 10 on that list). Being high on that list would probably generate coverage to pass WP:GNG, but that's not the case here. Owning a business that's in multiple countries doesn't assure notability as per WP:NOTINHERITED- it's doubtful whether the company is notable anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He is still on the list, just not on top 10 (see [2] as source), and as Ad Orientem said, there is sufficient coverage from reliable secondary sources (see [3], which goes into his background, [4], [5], and [6], among the other sources in the article). The company is also notable (see [7] and [8]) Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You give two links to establish the notability of his drug business; I can't access the second because I edit from a public library which blocks it (hardly confidence inspiring0, and the second looks like a lump of pr-generated muck in a less than reliable source. And , again, having an obscene amount of money does not make one notable. This person is clearly a nudnik.TheLongTone (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All the other sources I listed above bevcsides the ones you mention also establish the notability of who you refer to as a "nudnik's" business which you mistakenly refer to as a "drug" business. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vodka` not a drug? Have you ever encountered anybody who has taken the stuff. And yes, he is a nudnik. Simply a rich one.TheLongTone (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And his company may be notable (I doubt it) but please see WP:NOTINHERITED.TheLongTone (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - scrapes by per Ad Orientem. // Timothy :: talk 07:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:notability (people) as a BLP. This is Not a world-famous vodka company. We have editors that are not showing neutrality using weasel words. A main problem is that the majority of the sources are company-related, and as stated, Wikipedia:NOTINHERITED applies. By some of the above standards (broad and ill-defined), Jackson Quinn would be notable because he shares most of the sources with the subject. Sourcing that is passing mention does not advance notability. Repeated sources count as one toward notability. Sources that repeat information found in another source are likely press releases. Being rich and owning a business should not be a pass for an article. I am not sure how we get to barely notable or scrapes by. It either is ---or is not--- and I don't see notability to an encyclopedia level. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:01, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A fair share of the sources focus on him. Also, you say this is not a world-famous vodka company while saying at the same time most of the many sources (which are reliable) are about the company. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The company is decidedly less than world famous, hence the PR push to get the number of people who have heard of it into double figures.TheLongTone (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"double figures"... Au Vodka has 313000+ followers on Instagram alone. For comparison, of all the vodka brands that have a Wikipedia page, the one with by far the most followers is Crystal Head Vodka, which has 60k, less than 1/5 of the amount Au Vodka has. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The company is not what we are discussing. We are discussing Mr. Morgan and whether or not he meets the criteria for inclusion. I don't see a requirement that his business be world famous. If you are saying you think this guy is a bit of a non-entity and in a more rational world would not merit an article in an encyclopedia, I would be inclined to agree with you. But IDONTLIKEIT isn't a criteria for opposing. And as unimpressed as I am by this guy, he does in fact appear to meet our guidelines for inclusion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: reports of possibly having been kicked for stalling a match as a ball boy hardly qualifies for making the subject notable (no one ran a piece on him for that nor should they). The next 3 references are about the vodka and he's mentioned in passing. He being on the so called rich list is clearly an overstatement and not enough on its own to define notability. All in all, there aren't two separate sources that give him enough coverage to define notability as defined by WP:GNG. Rkieferbaum (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Covered by multiple sources and was the main person involved in the coverage.KatoKungLee (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I find are stories in the Daily Star or the Mirror, typical celebrity fluff pieces. Not finding GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

delete being a ballboy does not qualify and it seems as an entrepreneur he has managed to inherit a fortune of 42 million pounnds [9] and turn it into 40 million pounds [10]. Hardly an achievement and there is nothing that would pass WP:GNG here.--hroest 02:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
comment If his name was added to the article, maybe a redirect to Eden Hazard#2012–13: Debut season and first trophy. I'm sure that this satisfy the article creator, whose interestr is evidently kick-the-ball.TheLongTone (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage. WP:GNG has nothing to do with importance , and even a rich ballboy who makes vodka can scrape over the line. Moonraker (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unremarkable career. Yes he's rich but that in itself isn't enough to satisfy notability. LibStar (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – agreed, WP:GNG says nothing about money, but you should know it also says nothing about a "remarkable career"; so a point that holds no water. Moonraker (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yawn LibStar (talk) 01:41, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with Moonraker's points about WP:GNG above. Also, all the pro-deletion editors' main arguments are: Charlie Morgan is rich only because of his father (his father has not died yet), he is still a "nudnik" (one editor's actual words), and that his company is only known by 9+ people (one editors said "number of people who have heard of it into double figures") all of which they have supplied no actual evidence to back up. As evidence against the latter "argument", Au Vodka has 313000+ followers on Instagram alone. For comparison, of all the vodka brands that have a Wikipedia page, the one with by far the most followers is Crystal Head Vodka, which has 60k, less than 1/5 of the amount Au Vodka has. On top of that, there are many sources about the company (see [11] and [12] as an example, among many more sources online). He also has sufficient coverage from reliable secondary sources (see [13], which goes into his background, [14], [15], and [16], among the other sources in the article and more sources online. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:44, 13 March 2023 (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.