Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clem Chambers

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. Lack of independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. RL0919 (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clem Chambers[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)

Many references to news articles cited in the article but every single one of them is a link to a quotation/interview with the subject (i.e., a primary source, not independent of the subject). There is some coverage of industry prizes but these appear to be minor prizes the awarding of which did not involve any significant coverage of the subject. Could not find any reviews of their books in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG/WP:ANYBIO/WP:AUTHOR.
Additionally, this article is obviously a WP:PROMO article and as such fails WP:NOT. The article creator (and largest contributor) appears to be essentially single-purpose-account that edits almost exclusively topics related to the subject of this article (i.e., him and his company). Even when this account has edited topics other than articles related to Clem Chambers, it has been to add links to the books of Clem Chambers. As such this also appears to the the subject of a potential undisclosed WP:COI. There does not appear to be an earlier point in the edit history that could be reverted to that is free of these WP:PROMO problems and as such this is a WP:TNT case. FOARP (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:44, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article reeks of just being promotional. The account that created and updated this page is probably him or someone close to him. Very little turned up when I searched his name. Seems not that notable. Bluedude588 (talk) 08:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this wasn't 10 years old, it'd be G11 material. Delete - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A number of edits have been made. Clem Chambers is CEO of two publicly listed companies and is an authoritative and valued commentator on financial markets; a quick Google news search verifies this. Keep - Francescad Francescad (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Press releases are not RSes - David Gerard (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delte a non-notable businessman. Just because we can find press releases on him does not mean he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi John Pack Lambert, I meant the appearances on news channels discussing the markets as opposed to press releases. Also his Forbes pieces attract a lot of attention suggesting he is well regarded by the general public: https://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2019/09/25/bitcoin-has-crashed-what-now/#fde1e9f63ab4 Francescad Francescad (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In an interview with the subject, the information provided is not independent of its source, and hence not an independent WP:RS for the subject. The same goes double for articles by the subject like the one linked above. Also, the person voting keep in this case is the WP:SPA referred to in the nom.

Furthermore I have reviewed the new references added to the article since this AFD opened. None of them goes any further towards substantiating the notability of the subject. They are either blog articles and other non-reliable sources (e.g., the additional book review and the Fantastic Fiction profile), or they do not mention or barely mention the subject (like the new FT reference), or they are from companies owned by the subject (e.g., the ADVFN article). The closest is the FT Adviser book review, however this does not contain significant coverage of the subject (it briefly mentions him in two sentences). FOARP (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2019 (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.