- 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. MBisanz talk 01:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Neil Mathew (Entrepreneur)
- Neil Mathew (Entrepreneur) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a highly promotional article about an individual that does not meet notability requirements. Of the six references, 2 (yfsmagazine and evusa) are non-independent and 3 (dailymail, theverge, manoroflondon) include only passing mentions of Mathew. The remaining reference appears to be a low quality gossip site. Peacock ( talk) 11:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 11:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- an overly promotional page & glorified CV on an unremarkable individual. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
comment Hi, sorry for coming here late, I have found some more credible sources from Buzzfeed and other magazines article. I'll fix all issues soon, please give me some time to learn. I'll fix everything. Please don't delete yet. Thank you very much and your help is appreciated. Nuck2u ( talk) 16:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as all I fixed everything that was asked hello dear admins/editors, please have a look at the page now. I tried to fix everything that had issues. Categories updated, promotional terms removed, added new references from valuable resources, linked page internally to cover orphan tag. Hope so I met all the requirements. It is my kinda start here hope I did well, thank you for your suggestions and help, and I think he is enough notable as per his fan following and Fashion Icon status, well, please decide and guide further. Thankyou Nuck2u ( talk) 18:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Blatant spam or autobio. Sources are churnalism, routine directory listing, PR disguised as gossip, or written by Mathew about himself. None of this establishes notability. Grayfell ( talk) 18:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- comment Well, I don't know Mathew wrote them or who, I see them as independent resources, if Buzzfeed and all other well-known websites are not valid then please explain me the policies? I just saw those in a recent research so I thought to fix it. There are many articles out here with a single or no reference, anyway, none of my concerns. What do you call notability? I saw him as a fashion Icon and celebrity and well known within the elite class that's why I thought to create an article. I think your comment is Biased as you are judging and expressing ambiguity that all those articles are self-written while they clearly state that who wrote them. I am trying to learn more about Wikipedia because I am planning to contribute my readings and research about people. Please explain! like if someone praises Donald trump's qualities in the article it means Donald Trump wrote that article about himself? Nuck2u ( talk) 19:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- He's Donald Trump now? Be realistic. See WP:BIO and WP:GNG for an understanding of what Wikipedia's guidelines are.
- The Buzzfeed article is "community" content, meaning it has no substantial editorial oversight or fact-checking, nor is it useful for establishing notability, since it's essentially user generated content. It's also an interview, which is very poor for notability, since it's not independent of Mathew.
- The YFS Magazine ("Young, Fabulous, and Self-Employed") article was written by Mathew, and is likewise not independent. It's also devoid of substance or real insight, which makes it hard to take seriously, but that's only tangentially relevant. Since he wrote it himself, it is not usable for establishing notability.
- The rest of the sources are either listings or unreliable. The Essex Star may or may not be reliable, but even if it is, it's a just a gossip column. C&F is neither neutral, nor clearly reliable.
- I don't know if Mathew was directly involved in writing this Wikipedia article, but it's promotionally written and thinly sourced, so it's indistinguishable from spam.
Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.
Grayfell (
talk) 19:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- So your decisions are based on assumptions and self-thoughts. All things you shared proves that he desrves the page. See the section of
WP:ENT what point 2 and 3 says fits his profile. He developed/innovated a well-known APP for Elite class and also Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. And obviously, if someone is writing about a personality he/she will focus on his/her qualities and positive traits. There are hundreds of stubs and pages that do not have a single reference, if they could stay why not this one? Or if you don't know anything about those pages maybe I can launch AFD on all of them so you can also explain them to me because I want to know why. and also see that he is a brand ambassador of a famous brand in the UK and well-known in the world, that also full fills another requirement
Nuck2u (
talk) 15:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- He "innovated a well-known app", did he? Using peacock words in this discussion severely undermines your point. If you know of any other articles which are as blatantly promotional as this one, sources or not, please nominate them for deletion as appropriate. Wikipedia has a spam problem, but adding more of it isn't helping. Grayfell ( talk) 23:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- So your decisions are based on assumptions and self-thoughts. All things you shared proves that he desrves the page. See the section of
WP:ENT what point 2 and 3 says fits his profile. He developed/innovated a well-known APP for Elite class and also Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. And obviously, if someone is writing about a personality he/she will focus on his/her qualities and positive traits. There are hundreds of stubs and pages that do not have a single reference, if they could stay why not this one? Or if you don't know anything about those pages maybe I can launch AFD on all of them so you can also explain them to me because I want to know why. and also see that he is a brand ambassador of a famous brand in the UK and well-known in the world, that also full fills another requirement
Nuck2u (
talk) 15:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Good to keep I think this person is emerging as a next billionaire, sooner or later being discussed in more high authority sites. I guess someone will create it again, so why not you guys could keep it. Just a thought Prof.Marlin ( talk) 11:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't keep article on people who may become notable in the future: see WP:CRYSTAL. Please also keep in mind that AFD is not a vote: see WP:DISCUSSAFD. Thanks. Grayfell ( talk) 19:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - even assuming everything is verified, I don't see what makes him more than a run of the mill brand marketer. I can think of several more such people who are more notable, but don't have articles: Kory Aversa and Libby Post amongst the lot. While the subject of this page is mentioned or interviewed in some good sources, so are many other brand entrepreneurs with their 15 minutes of fame. I don't see significant coverage of him rather than the products he sells. "Sooner or later" is not good enough for an encyclopedia. Nobody deserves an article on Wikipedia; we have high standards for notability, especially living persons. In fact, Wikipedia is a charity, not a free web host for other people to make money off of Wikipedians' hard work. Bearian ( talk) 23:42, 4 June 2017 (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.
- 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. MBisanz talk 01:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Neil Mathew (Entrepreneur)
- Neil Mathew (Entrepreneur) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a highly promotional article about an individual that does not meet notability requirements. Of the six references, 2 (yfsmagazine and evusa) are non-independent and 3 (dailymail, theverge, manoroflondon) include only passing mentions of Mathew. The remaining reference appears to be a low quality gossip site. Peacock ( talk) 11:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. FITINDIA 11:41, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 12:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- an overly promotional page & glorified CV on an unremarkable individual. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:48, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
comment Hi, sorry for coming here late, I have found some more credible sources from Buzzfeed and other magazines article. I'll fix all issues soon, please give me some time to learn. I'll fix everything. Please don't delete yet. Thank you very much and your help is appreciated. Nuck2u ( talk) 16:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep as all I fixed everything that was asked hello dear admins/editors, please have a look at the page now. I tried to fix everything that had issues. Categories updated, promotional terms removed, added new references from valuable resources, linked page internally to cover orphan tag. Hope so I met all the requirements. It is my kinda start here hope I did well, thank you for your suggestions and help, and I think he is enough notable as per his fan following and Fashion Icon status, well, please decide and guide further. Thankyou Nuck2u ( talk) 18:39, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Blatant spam or autobio. Sources are churnalism, routine directory listing, PR disguised as gossip, or written by Mathew about himself. None of this establishes notability. Grayfell ( talk) 18:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- comment Well, I don't know Mathew wrote them or who, I see them as independent resources, if Buzzfeed and all other well-known websites are not valid then please explain me the policies? I just saw those in a recent research so I thought to fix it. There are many articles out here with a single or no reference, anyway, none of my concerns. What do you call notability? I saw him as a fashion Icon and celebrity and well known within the elite class that's why I thought to create an article. I think your comment is Biased as you are judging and expressing ambiguity that all those articles are self-written while they clearly state that who wrote them. I am trying to learn more about Wikipedia because I am planning to contribute my readings and research about people. Please explain! like if someone praises Donald trump's qualities in the article it means Donald Trump wrote that article about himself? Nuck2u ( talk) 19:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
- He's Donald Trump now? Be realistic. See WP:BIO and WP:GNG for an understanding of what Wikipedia's guidelines are.
- The Buzzfeed article is "community" content, meaning it has no substantial editorial oversight or fact-checking, nor is it useful for establishing notability, since it's essentially user generated content. It's also an interview, which is very poor for notability, since it's not independent of Mathew.
- The YFS Magazine ("Young, Fabulous, and Self-Employed") article was written by Mathew, and is likewise not independent. It's also devoid of substance or real insight, which makes it hard to take seriously, but that's only tangentially relevant. Since he wrote it himself, it is not usable for establishing notability.
- The rest of the sources are either listings or unreliable. The Essex Star may or may not be reliable, but even if it is, it's a just a gossip column. C&F is neither neutral, nor clearly reliable.
- I don't know if Mathew was directly involved in writing this Wikipedia article, but it's promotionally written and thinly sourced, so it's indistinguishable from spam.
Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.
Grayfell (
talk) 19:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- So your decisions are based on assumptions and self-thoughts. All things you shared proves that he desrves the page. See the section of
WP:ENT what point 2 and 3 says fits his profile. He developed/innovated a well-known APP for Elite class and also Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. And obviously, if someone is writing about a personality he/she will focus on his/her qualities and positive traits. There are hundreds of stubs and pages that do not have a single reference, if they could stay why not this one? Or if you don't know anything about those pages maybe I can launch AFD on all of them so you can also explain them to me because I want to know why. and also see that he is a brand ambassador of a famous brand in the UK and well-known in the world, that also full fills another requirement
Nuck2u (
talk) 15:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- He "innovated a well-known app", did he? Using peacock words in this discussion severely undermines your point. If you know of any other articles which are as blatantly promotional as this one, sources or not, please nominate them for deletion as appropriate. Wikipedia has a spam problem, but adding more of it isn't helping. Grayfell ( talk) 23:51, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- So your decisions are based on assumptions and self-thoughts. All things you shared proves that he desrves the page. See the section of
WP:ENT what point 2 and 3 says fits his profile. He developed/innovated a well-known APP for Elite class and also Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. And obviously, if someone is writing about a personality he/she will focus on his/her qualities and positive traits. There are hundreds of stubs and pages that do not have a single reference, if they could stay why not this one? Or if you don't know anything about those pages maybe I can launch AFD on all of them so you can also explain them to me because I want to know why. and also see that he is a brand ambassador of a famous brand in the UK and well-known in the world, that also full fills another requirement
Nuck2u (
talk) 15:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
- Good to keep I think this person is emerging as a next billionaire, sooner or later being discussed in more high authority sites. I guess someone will create it again, so why not you guys could keep it. Just a thought Prof.Marlin ( talk) 11:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia doesn't keep article on people who may become notable in the future: see WP:CRYSTAL. Please also keep in mind that AFD is not a vote: see WP:DISCUSSAFD. Thanks. Grayfell ( talk) 19:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - even assuming everything is verified, I don't see what makes him more than a run of the mill brand marketer. I can think of several more such people who are more notable, but don't have articles: Kory Aversa and Libby Post amongst the lot. While the subject of this page is mentioned or interviewed in some good sources, so are many other brand entrepreneurs with their 15 minutes of fame. I don't see significant coverage of him rather than the products he sells. "Sooner or later" is not good enough for an encyclopedia. Nobody deserves an article on Wikipedia; we have high standards for notability, especially living persons. In fact, Wikipedia is a charity, not a free web host for other people to make money off of Wikipedians' hard work. Bearian ( talk) 23:42, 4 June 2017 (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.