Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Patel (digital marketer)

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. Will protect this and the two previous titles due to repeated re-creation. RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Patel (digital marketer)[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)

Procedural nomination and I am neutral in this nom with my !vote to come below. Agree with the decline of the speedy (courtesy @Bbb23:) and the closure of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Neil_Patel_review, but as this has been deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Patel (entrepreneur) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Patel (online marketing strategist), I feel like this needs larger discussion and possible resolution. Star Mississippi 17:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 17:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete I thought the book might actually help establish notability, but he is only co-author. This isn't in enough depth for a review and this is of questionable independence or editorial oversight. While the article appears well referenced, I do not think he is a notable businessman when taking into account the quality of the sourcing. ~~I do not think we have a bad faith creation issue, however, as the prior creators do not appear connected and this may just be an alternate view of what his "title" is.~~ Edit struck 1/21 per the below conversation with Novem Linguae. Rest of !vote stands as I still don't believe he's notable. Star Mississippi 17:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC) Star Mississippi 17:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He appears to have been a contributor to Forbes, based on a GNews search and his book seems to have been on the New York Times best seller list per the Forbes bio. Would seem to be notable, but neutral at this time until better sources are brought up.Oaktree b (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - likewise waiting for better sources but on present showing, if there's any notability here it seems to go with the book, not the man.Ingratis (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Evidently a known figure to those who follow digital marketing publications. However, the subject's bylines in business publications do not establish any notability, since contributing writers to Inc., Entrepreneur, Business 2 Community, and Forbes tend to be a mix of non-authoritative and authoritative people, with clear marketing objectives. The only decent sources are the NYTimes and Fortune. However, both make the case of notability for the subject's published material, but not the subject itself. Reliable, independent sources by staff writers or editorial staff covering the subject are needed to establish notability. Multi7001 (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is like a Hydra where the page is deleted only for another one to resurface. I'm wondering how a dormant account who's never created an article before suddenly creates one and it's on a subject who's had a contentious past here. At the very least, it's suspicious. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a case of using WP to market one's marketing business. Atsme 💬 📧 20:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG in my opinion; cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. (t · c) buidhe 21:38, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT this and previous namespaces. best, GPL93 (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt all the different incarnations of this page. Fails WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt; the man isn't a marketer, he's a grifter who's part of a predatory investment advice group: Angels and Entrepreneurs; which is a group in the same vein as the Palm Beach Research Group. 2601:540:8200:89F:C576:2539:3EA0:A09B (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BLP and no significant coverage by reliable sources.--Ts12rAc^{talk to me} 10:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to salt. Seeing as this has been created and AFDd under 3 different names. Seems to be some attempts to evade scrutiny going on. Neil Patel (digital marketer), Neil Patel (entrepreneur), Neil Patel (online marketing strategist). –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not disagreeing with SALT, but is there any benefit when the creators are using different titles already? This isn't currently a case of SALT evasion so much as independent creation. Star Mississippi 15:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My gut instinct is that this article subject has had an experienced UPE trying to get around G4 in the past (and who knows presently, I don't want to make accusations without evidence). Upon further investigation just now, this seems to be confirmed, as the article Neil Patel (online marketing strategist) was created by LTKT, who is a CheckUser confirmed sockpuppet of Wikibaji, who has a massive SPI archive that has the term UPE mentioned six times. In conclusion, because we have confirmed UPE for this article subject, I think salting makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had missed that SPI, thanks so much for flagging and retract my comment about good faith creation. Still not sure how SALTing would work given we can't guess future permutations on title, but hopefully we won't need to play whack a mole. Star Mississippi 17:33, 21 January 2022 (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.