Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Sandelson

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Sandelson[edit]

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

This article about a businessman was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) and also with reference to Wikipedia:Bell Pottinger COI Investigations. The deletion was contested at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 2 and as a result the article is hereby made subject to a deletion discussion. This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Sandstein 20:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article had serious problems with bias, but Sandelson and his developments have been widely reported in the press, as the referenced articles show. I attempted to correct some of the bias, and looking at the wide and often critical press coverage it should not be hard to construct a more balanced article: I added criticism of the Carlyon Bay scheme and detail on the GuestInvest bankrupcy and removed some unsourced claims. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think keeping it in the Wikipedia will only mean constant patrolling for more vanity or a potential lawsuit if there are any mistakes - this is a bio of a living person. I have worked in real-estate so I quickly noticed that much of this article reads like real estate Google Adword copy.

Some of the more suspicious phrases will only return google ads to Johnny Sandelson's related properties.
A cursory look at this article's history shows it is a poisoned by commercial interests. :*The bulk of the content is a deception due to multiple sock puppet accounts.
While it appears to be well sourced the articles quoted are also PR pieces from non-WP:RS. BO; talk 17:38, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMOTION supported by WP:NOPAY. The conflicts of interest of the article's creators have resulted in a self-promotional article that violates WP:NPOV. The majority of the content on this article was added by User:GBSewnlim and User:Diginerd84, both sockpuppets for British PR firm Bell Pottinger. These accounts were editing Wikipedia to further their clients' interests and the ensuing investigation into their edits resulted in a number of the articles they created being deleted. User:Vjdigital, another Bell Pottinger employee, brought this article to DRV to "resolve the deletion" and the article was restored. Despite efforts to address the self-promotion and puffery, several issues persist. Bell Pottinger has previously managed to bury undesirable information deeper than the first 10 pages of a Google search and retaining this article would require a thorough vetting of the references used to ensure that they're not BP-created puff pieces. OrenBochman correctly recognises that these sources are unreliable. Gobōnobo ⁺ ^c 18:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after review of sources (and I reviewed this after, not before, Colapeninsula's changes. I'm ... pretty impressed by how effectively the push of press releases into the media appears to have been accomplished here, I'd be hard pressed to defend the reliability of nearly anything used as a source itn his article that provides substantial coverage. Putting aside likely "reprinted press releases", I find insufficient sourcing to clearly meet WP:BASIC, and given the very sensible WP:NPOV concerns about insidious manipulation of sources, I'm unwilling to give any leeway whatsoever at the margin of our biographical guidelines. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 15:16, 23 April 2012 (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.