Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euwyn Poon

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 keep. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Euwyn Poon

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Euwyn Poon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual. There is substantial coverage of the company he founded, but not about him as an individual. I suggest this should be redirected to Spin (company). SmartSE (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to Spin (company). The sources definitely provide notability to the company but not himself. Meszzy² (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources addressing the notability of the individual have been added. These are in line with other sources that assert the notability of other entrepreneurs; more can be added.Samefox8 (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

I see sources about the company but not about the individual himself. Meszzy² (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The Tech in Asia piece at https://www.techinasia.com/asian-values-american-dream-ford-spent-100m-singaporeanfounded-scooter-startup seems to address this. It'd be helpful to see an example of a piece about an entrepreneur completely disassociated with the prominent company he founded. Samefox8 (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources do not need to be completely disassociated with the company, the question here however is in terms of notability - is the individual notable enough for his own page? We usually show notability by the presence of secondary sources with the individual being the subject of that source as it shows that a news organization has dedicated editorial resources to reporting on that individual, meaning that the individual is of public interest. The problem with this individual in my view is that the sources are simply due to public interest in the company, but not the individual themselves. I cannot view the article you linked as its behind a paywall, but it does look like it is about this individual. However, it would seem to me that just one secondary source is not enough to prove notability for an entire article. WP:GNG does state that "multiple [secondary] sources are generally expected." In my opinion the only thing of public interest regarding this individual is the company, not really himself, whereas for a more notable entrepreneur, their birthday or where they went to school for example is of public interest, along with other aspects about them, which is why they receive their own article. This public interest is usually shown by an article meeting the requirements in WP:GNG, or more specifically for people WP:BASIC. Meszzy² (talk) 21:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. There are multiple secondary sources, though some are behind paywall (TechInAsia and ) and some are podcasts . Will return to this discussion with more sources. Samefox8 (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Based on the sources added by editors since the AfD, and looking at overall notability reqs, I think the subject passes WP:GNG at the least. Skirts⁸⁹ 08:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Skirts89: No sources have been added since this began. Which sources do you think mean that GNG is met? The business insider article is about the company, not him personally. Being featured on random podcasts does not confer notability. @Meszzy2: did you look at the most recent links provided? SmartSE (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Meszzy2: Hi, I meant the sources added in this discussion above. TechInAsia is a reliable secondary source which I think indicates notability. Skirts⁸⁹ 09:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Meets WP:ANYBIO making a widely recognized contribution in his field WP:NOTPAPER. Lubbad85 (☎) 13:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lubbad85 (☎) 13:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

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.