Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nigel Botterill (2nd nomination)

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. With respect to the two keep arguments, one, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ImageFInder913 suggests that it's actually only one, two, the only source-based argument has not convinced anyone else. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Botterill[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)

Non-notable entrepreneur. He may have been moderately successful but despite rampant self-promotion and plenty of PR has not attracted deep, significant coverage from reliable sources. Hugsyrup (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This businessman has had press coverage in [The Telegraph] and[The Guardian]. He is the author of two books [Botty's Rules] and [Build Your Business In 90 Minutes A Day] the former of which was a Sunday Times Bestseller. Agreed that the article needs expansion and better sourcing but is worthy of existence. ImageFInder913 (talk) 14:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC) — ImageFInder913 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Both of the above links are in the small business showcase areas of the newspapers. I'm not saying that totally invalidates it, but the bar for being positively featured in these areas is not particularly high. It's not significant, independent coverage. Hugsyrup (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't edit in business biographies but the article seems extremely undersourced and promotional; if kept it will need rewriting completely. If notability is claimed as an author, then what is needed is multiple reviews of each of the books; see WP:AUTHOR. This is not provided, indeed the second book is not even mentioned in the current article. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have edited the article to remove unreliable sources and promotional material. Article is now more reliable and mentions the books listed above. EditUK84 (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC) — EditUK84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ImageFInder913, the above user is a 'likely' sockpuppet of ImageFInder913 who also !voted above. I'm not striking the comment as the SPI isn't yet closed either way, but just worth highlighting in case this AFD gets closed before the SPI. Hugsyrup (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. afaict his books got no reviews. There is a claim to have gotten on a bestseller list that I cannot source. Most of the career section is unsourced.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty clear PROMO of a NN businessman and author. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a WP:NAUTHOR failure. The subject has published books, but the article lacks sources that indicate why these books are significant or how the author has a claim to encyclopedic significance. The article was also created contrary to WP:NOTADVERTISING.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2019 (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.