Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Ripert

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. ✗plicit 03:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Ripert

[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)

Likely to fail WP:NBIO. Tom is not specifically mentioned in the NYT and New Yorker (there is however, an "Eric Ripert" who is presumably the subject's father). The other refs read like PR/promotional pieces. KH-1 (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A vanity page. I removed the New Yorker citation - it's not about him at all, and it just adds a veneer of reliable sourciness that the article doesn't deserve. Can't see the NYT article but from nominator's comment that cite probably deserves the same fate, leaving the article unsourced beyond self-published and apparently self-authored cites. Oblivy (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Skynxnex (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oblivy is right that the New Yorker citation refers very obviously to a completely different person in a different industry. This is very worrying, as it implies either total incompetence from whoever inserted it, or deception, neither of which is a good basis for an article. I also smell a rat on the whole business. I did find a source in the New York Weekly but (a) this reeks of the work of a publicist, derived from the subject himself, and (b) it's blacklisted. The additional rat that I'm smelling comes from Companies house, which lists ROLZO in the UK as a micro-company with 3 employees in 2021, and fixed assets of less than £12,000. That sounds pretty small for a taxi-company, so either the UK branch is rather tiny or the whole thing is rather tiny. I can't help feel this might all be publicity from someone whose ambitions are much larger than their reality. Maybe better to wait for something more reliable before we have an article. Elemimele (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to 30/6/2022 unaudited accounts, they had net assets of GBP250K, 3 employees. [1] Otherwise I agree with all you've said. Oblivy (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted only fixed assets. Either way, it's small. It may be bigger in some other country, but I have doubts. Elemimele (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that now. Perhaps they are leasing the cars? Anyway, agree it's not a substantial company. Oblivy (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Calipost is a SEO/PR fake blog, so was the "limitless magazine" bit which was posted by the same SEO guy from "disruptmagazine". A noted, the NYT bit mentions neither the subject of this article, nor the company in question. I wouldn't expect it to since it was published when he was 16 years old. This is just UDPE garbage. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For transparency, after reviewing the author's other additions and the ignored UDPE request on his page, I've blocked the account. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:03, 3 June 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.