Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Bell (Australian 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 no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Bell (Australian entrepreneur)[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)

Contested WP:PROD by an IP. The subject of the article doesn't seem to have done anything notable per WP:GNG. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. Citations are predominantly uncritical media sourced from direct interviews or press releases; distinct lack of in-depth coverage in independent and reliable sources. Subject works in internet marketing and appears to excel at self promotion. Content of article is largely trivial and not NPOV. Simon Wright (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Simon Wright (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Simon Wright (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 01:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition note the page was created by WP:SPA whose only edits are the creation of this page. Cabrils (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Nominator also seems to be more like WP:SPA, coming to wiki once in a year. He is very clearly a newbie. Meeanaya (talk) 07:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would ask that you strike through that contribution. At the risk of breaching WP:DBN I've been contributing on and off for fifteen years. You created your account a few weeks ago. Simon Wright (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For both of you, please make sure to refrain from commenting on editor conduct and focus on the validity of the page. --CNMall41 (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to draft~~. Weak keep or move to draft. More sources (probably better sources) can be found, but a slog to search because the name is common. On first glance, some sources already there are actually passable, but not being used properly. Can be addressed in draft. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The bulk of citations are non-journalistic interviews from non-staff contributors thus neither reliable sources nor NPOV. Regardless, the core issue is still notability. Plenty of people drop out of university, start businesses in a booming sector and sell them for a profit. Simon Wright (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bulk of, perhaps, not all of. Too many possible sources to check in the time this process takes. Move to draft gives time to check those sources and make sure, while taking article out of mainspace, effectively invisible to searchers/readers. If nothing more is found, it will disappear from draft space too. Hyperbolick (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Out of the first four references, three of them are in national newspapers written by staff writers with editorial oversight. I guess move to draft would be fine as the page could use some cleanup, but AfD isn't a method for cleanup. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding here to comments left on my talk page as this is the appropriate forum for the discussion, not there. Also adding my two cents to other comments here. Nominators comments of, "there is no dispute that the sources are valid, the question is whether they accumulate into notability, per WP:ANYBIO and WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE," are conflicting with the same editor's comments of the references being, "predominantly uncritical media sourced from direct interviews or press releases; distinct lack of in-depth coverage in independent and reliable sources." NBUSINESSPEOPLE is not a guideline but a guide that shows prior outcomes from deletion discussions. ANYBIO is a guideline but so is WP:GNG which is met if "there is no dispute that the sources are valid." --CNMall41 (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and close: The page has sufficient WP:RS to pass WP:GNG. Also, to note the page was accepted by WP:AFC and there is no need to move again to draft and again ask another reviewer to view it. The page can be edited to live and there isn't much content to go through AFC again. Nominator's contributions also seems to be with a purpose and he has very clearly overlooked the sources. Meeanaya (talk) 07:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have trimmed down the promotional content, I don't think that there is more advert. Meeanaya (talk) 07:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:NAECOLN. There is no dispute that the sources are valid, the question is whether they accumulate into notability, per WP:ANYBIO and WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. Even after your edits there is still substantial amounts of trivial and self-promoting material on that page. Bell's success is clearly impressive but is still WP:MILL per guidelines. For contrast see this AFD for an example of valid notability. Simon Wright (talk) 08:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Wright, before WP:ANYBIO and WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE, WP:GNG is met. Please go through the policy detail and let us know if you are not clear, we might help you out. Meeanaya (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my vote a bit. Might seem silly, but I decided to look at whether anything new has come about just since the start of this discussion. There is this. Somewhat trivial subject matter, but what non-notable person sees their house profiled in their country's most circulated national paper? Hyperbolick (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A curious observation; as a regular Aus reader I'd say a majority of people with houses profiled in the magazine aren't even remotely notable. All it means is you have a nice house and are not worried about your privacy. As for the remaining citations, nearly all are interviews and it's worth noting the relevant guidelines state that ...anything interviewees say about themselves or their own work is both primary and non-independent. If it's primary and non-independent, our guidelines make clear that it does not contribute to notability. But it's a nice house so whatever goes. Simon Wright (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still fine with moving to draft for further development. Just that the fact he's in the news just this week lends the sense that he's continually newsworthy. So, weak keep or move to draft. A waste to delete, tho, if continued news is likely to come. Hyperbolick (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. It looks like there are editors working on improving the article, and finding ways to do it. If improvement doesn't continue, it can always be revisited in a couple months. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 06:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO There seems to be a strong push to get article out of Afd even though there is not a single references about Bell himself, all of them are companies and wholly generic in nature. The first six references are the essentially same. Ref 12 is a raw press release. Ref 10, 7 and 11 are promoting his new company which is against WP:NOTADVERTISING and don't really help assert notability. Ref 11 reads like a press release. Outside the two companies and his previous work there is no depth of coverage that satisfies WP:GNG. Not a single ref is about him alone and what is there is WP:ROUTINE business news about his companies. scope_creep^Talk 18:10, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- yes, but how do you separate personality-driven companies from the person? Article which influenced me was about his house, not companies. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case your vote is null and void since your discussing a house, while we're discussing a BLP. scope_creep^Talk 15:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - (sigh) you misunderstand entirely. Read the article. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage in national media over several years. Meets WP:GNG / WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:16, 13 September 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.