Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Hatter

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. RL0919 (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Hatter

[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)

Largely (self?)promotional article that does not pass WP:BIO about a life coach full of non-independent sources and passing mentions in the context of a now defunct companies fundraising announcements. AlasdairEdits (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response from theNickHatter

I am the subject of this article.

This article is factual as far as I can see and backed up 16 secondary sources consisting of very credible sources.

Please, can you identify which statements, in particular, are self-promotional? If so, I think it would be best if we delete/rephrase those rather than deleting the whole article. What do you think?

In addition, there are interviews on me on national television:

Channel 4's 4Music (where I was a special guest on a popular TV show, Trending Live): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkAQbuF2DZY

Cambridge TV (where I was interviewed about in-game advertising and entrepreneurship): https://insight.jbs.cam.ac.uk/2016/cambridge-tv-cambridge-entrepreneurs-giftgaming/

Please see Talk page for suggested additional sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nick_Hatter

In addition, just because giftgaming is now defunct, does not mean it was not noteworthy. It was incredibly popular with equity crowdfunding, one of the most oversubscribed projects in 2014, it won TechCrunch Awards and featured on TechCrunch Disrupt Battlefield 2014,

My page has been the subject of much vandalism- if I was un-noteworthy, I don't think it would've been targeted as much :-) Just my two cents though.

Note I did not publish the majority of the information on the article.

--TheNickHatter (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interviews are not independent coverage. "one of the most oversubscribed projects in 2014" They asked for £10,000 and got over £30,000 instead. Џ 05:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What’s the difference between independent coverage and interviews? Is it not possible to have both? The only difference seems whether it’s written or not. In any case appearing on talk shows is pretty notable imho — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.14.251.229 (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC) — 31.14.251.229 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete interviews do not count as indepdent coverage because they do not go through the same level of oversight and debate in formation. Wikipedia is not meant to create notability, only cover those who are already notable, which Hatter is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. No WP:RS. Notability does not equal popularity. Aurornisxui (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, interviews are not independent coverage. @TheNickHatter I highly recommend you read WP:AUTOBIO, WP:COI, and WP:NOTPROMO. I'd also like note that 31.14.251.229 is an IP that's only contributions are to this article and so its "keep" vote could very well be a case of WP:SOCK. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
‘’’Delete’’’ - I the subject am actually now in favour of deletion FWIW. I do find it interesting that it only got nominated for deletion because I challenged an editor’s decision regarding notability. In any case: It’s all ego and I don’t need Wikipedia to validate my achievements. I was honoured when my page was created however it’s cost me enough time and effort to ensure my info is correct and monitor my page against vandalism and all the email notifications about this thread. I have better things to do with my life - like serving others. I’ll agree with you that it should be deleted for not meeting Wikipedia’s standards of notability. Please do go ahead and take it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheNickHatter (talk • contribs) 10:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Mr. Hatter himself rightly says Wikipedia is not meant to validate anyone's achievements, but to serve as an encyclopedia. BrightSide (talk) 18:04, 1 February 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.