Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Collins (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. Randykitty (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Collins (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)

Although at first glance this appears to be heavily referenced, I doubt that it meets WP:NBIO as many of the references are in-passing or about companies related to this individual. The entire section "other contributions" is a good example: most of the links are to author profiles in blogs and such; this and this are good examples. Overall one gets the impression of some kind of vanity biography. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - borderline vanispamcruftisement as presently written. Nearly fifty references but most of them some combination of self published, unreliable, primary, trivial or deadlinks. The "best entrepreneur under 30" award (which is mentioned in several other sources) comes from Anthill Online, "one of Australia’s largest online communities for entrepreneurs, business builders and innovators" - I'm not even certain they would be independently notable, therefore an award from them certainly wouldn't be. I'd suggest merge into Mailman Group, but that article isn't any better and is of similarly unclear notability. Probably a bare pass of GNG with this from The Australian, but it doesn't make much of an assertion of notability - he founded a few companies of uncertain notability and got an award from an online community, also of uncertain notability. In its current state I think it's a delete; may change !vote if a successful effort is made to rectify spamminess and other issues. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 06:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Borderline, yes, but in my view there seems to be sufficient breadth of coverage to just get over the WP:NEXIST line. Yes article could do with some rewrite. Aoziwe (talk) 11:10, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely weak keep but would love to delete it. I feel like this article is an impressive instance of how Wikipedia can be gamed. It is clearly promotional cruft, yet look at all the sources! I clicked on a bunch of them and yeah they're pretty meh, but there they are. He is a marketing guy, so of course. I suspect he engineered 90% of the coverage himself, and also got someone to write the page up for him. Yet how can we delete it just because it is so obviously that? Doesn't it follow the surface of the rules which require multiple independent RS? And I bet if we here deleted it because there is no profile of Andrew Collins, a few months later he will have organized a nice profile from a friendly journalist. I do suggest cutting the piece to 1/3 of the size though, if possible...Happy monsoon day 19:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INDISCRIMINATE potentially applies - we don't have an article for every businessman in the world, even if they have a bit of news coverage. He certainly doesn't get anywhere near WP:ANYBIO.Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:IAR. If Wikipedia's rules are obviously being gamed, they're not ironclad. Yeti Hunter (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Delete. Thanks for those policy links. I think while ANYBIO is relevant, what this one comes down to is really just IAR. We're all looking at this article and agree that it's simply a waste of space and want to get rid of it because is so obviously pure promotional cruft, but it can be a little tricky to hang it on a particular policy when they've gone to the trouble of digging up a zillion references. But yes, I personally think it should be done away with. Ironically if the fellow and his PR team had simply kept the promote to a single paragraph, no one would have bothered to AfD it, because it wouldn't be so offensive.Happy monsoon day 20:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Happy monsoon day: To help the closing admin, could you please strike/remove your initial keep vote above. Nick-D (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious spam article with no good version to revert to. I agree with the nomination statement and Yeti Hunter's assessment. The article is written in PR prose, includes irrelevant material and puffery (for instance, "Collins partnered with China Branding Group in 2012 to launch Fanstang.com,[23][24] which is an international celebrity social network connecting global stars with China. It has connected Hollywood stars and musicians like Alicia Keys, Avril Lavigne, Taylor Swift and more to social media users in China.[25] Fanstang is regarded as a leader within the China celebrity and entertainment industry.[4]" - only the first half of the first sentence is relevant) and none of the sources provide in-depth coverage of this person: most are very lightweight marketing type websites or listings of this person at various events or businesses. Nick-D (talk) 02:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:ANYBIO; significant RS coverage not found. Promotional 'cruft. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2018 (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.