Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee McAteer

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lee McAteer

Lee McAteer (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)

Sources are non-independent, some are blatant promotion. Article is WP:Reference bombed, I didn't check all sources, but the leading sources that supposedly speak to notability fail. This article is promoting a CEO and his adventure company. Fails WP:BIO, as written it should be merged into the company article which fails WP:CORP. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed, the sources all discuss this person in the context of his (non-notable) company. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 01:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep it appears that he passes WP:GNG with coverage sources such as The Independent, MoneyWeek and Manchester Evening News, despite spammy coverage such as Daily Mail and The Sun. Burroughs'10 (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dispute The Independent, and Manchester Evening News can be considered WP:INDEPENDENT. They are feature stories repeating company supplied information and lacking editorial commentary, it is advertorial. Not independent, not a secondary source, not useful for speaking to Wikipedia-notability. MoneyWeek? To what MoneyWeek source do you refer? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I dispute the claims of advertorial above - those are clearly simple business profiles. Both the MEN and The Independent clearly mark sponsored or advertorial content. I have no strong feelings about retention or deletion of this piece, but the assertion of advertorial seems clearly incorrect. Mattyjohn (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look a bit more carefully at (1) the language; (2) the facts presented; and (3) the opinions presented. The language is all gosh-gosh-gosh. The facts are all subject-supplied, it’s just an interview rewritten in third person, and opinions, there are not author-opinions. It’s non-critical puff. Advertorial is the word. It’s non-independent, and it’s not secondary source material. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It is quite possibly a paid for article and the refs too, but that would be quite elaborate and impossible to prove ? Szzuk (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: notability is not there; promo 'cruft. Sourcing is passing mentions and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete he is not notable outside of his company. Whether his company is notable or not is another story, but this article has little content beyond info about his company and no coverage to expand beyond it. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Requires a judgement call on whether the refs are independent, its a close call but on balance delete. Szzuk (talk) 11:03, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Disagree with Fenix Feather, company seems to be discussed in context of his involvement minus the last half of the final paragraph. Not an expert, but agree that WP:GNG is met through coverage in reliable second party sources. Cut down to bare essentials that belong if it stays. Cayenne kid (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hugely cut, but still needs to be deleted. I’m guessing you think the interview articles are independent and meet the GNG? They are not. Interviews are not to be considered independent coverage. Regardless, a more straightforward testing is against WP:CORP, noting everything is about his company. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Business profiles are the epitome of PR, and are not reliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 29 March 2018 (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.