Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Michael (real estate developer)

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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Michael (real estate developer)

[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)

I looked at this article under new page review. This bio looks very doubtful to me in terms of notability. The notability tag was added by another editor but removed by the creator. I don’t really see anything here that would clearly get the subject over the line, so would welcome a consensus view. Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 11:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Taking a quick look at the sources, subject appears to meet WP:GNG with sig cov in quite a few reliable, independent sources including Forbes and CNBC. Article could use a little help to more clearly establish notability, but sourcing shows notability by wiki guidelines. Rainchecker (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It seems there are issues pertaining to WP:VER, WP:PROMO, WP:NBIO, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. Regarding WP:OR, no reliable public sources exist for the subjects birthdate or school affiliations. How did the editors obtain this information? The editor who called light to this was blocked from editing. Next, the edit history reveals a Danish website saying this person attended Roskilde University as a school newspaper editor. Zero sources list subject as attending Harvard University. Regarding WP:VER, the subjects birth name is in question. Reference links to the Danish Business Authority and persons previous published journalism are linked in reference links #1 & #2. They say his name is Philip Michael SHANGE and links were provided by a previous editor in the history. There are concerns about WP:PROMO as IMBD links are self created promotional pages. Reference link #16 “Building Community…” from the Business Collective mentions no established author or dates and appears to be a self bio. Reference link #14, “Top Entrepreneurs you Can’t Miss During Covid19,” is an AccessWire Press Release uploaded to Yahoo Finance, which is pure self promotion. Reference links say the subject is crowdfunding right now. They may be using wiki as an extension to their marketing efforts. Even the Forbes & CNBC pieces are written by content contributors, not staff writers from Forbes & CNBC who vet content. WP:NBIO is in question. Proximity to a celebrity (being their cousin who develops real estate) doesn’t make you notable. Launching a crowdfunding campaign to purchase real estate doesn’t make someone notable. Some of the articles linked for references are actually about the notable futbol star Martin Braithwaite and merely reference Philip Michael Shange. Not certain this was edited with a WP:NPOV seeing promotional references were used and subject is not mentioned in some of the the WP:REF tags. Reference #12 about the Bisnow Sale “Bisnow purchased for a reported $50 million,” does not list the subjects name anywhere in the article. Mark35JayM (talk) 06:29, 29 July 2020 (EST)
Comment The above delete vote is obviously coming from a blocked SPA who is likely one of the 3 editors that have been vandalizing the page for no just cause. A look at the page history reveals that. They include User:Chinablack3004, User:BrandonTaylor404, and User:Givana Angela. 2 have been banned alongside User talk:Mark35JayM. All 4 only focused on this page. They were warned to desist from such. Few days after the warning came this AFD nomination and then this "delete" vote. This is certainly disheartening. Could be a case of WP:ATTACK.Mariah200 (talk) 13:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has suffered from a lot of undisclosed paid editing, and I don't think this meets GNG. Many of the sources (such as Forbes) are blogs, not reliable; others merely mention him, but do not qualify as "significant". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:SIGCOV, WP:NOTRESUME, WP:TOOSOON, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:GNG. Even if everything is true, and the promotional tone were fixed, he hasn't done anything by himself yet that would make him notable. Writing a book, becoming a manager, co-hosting a sporting event does not make a person notable. If this were 2007, we could excuse this resume masquerading as an article, but in 2020, everybody knows we are a charity and not a web-host for profit. One more thing: for someone supposedly well-known, he has 1,200 fewer Twitter followers than I do, and I'm a nobody. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I’ve never solely focused on this page nor did vandalized it. All my contributions to Philip Michael's page have been credible and positive. You can check my page history for my contributions. I also updated Martin Braithwaite's page when I saw an article about his wife being pregnant. Then I enhanced Philip Michael's notability by adding an article to his page. I also updated a minor fix where a reference was listed incorrectly. Stop dragging me into your edit wars. Mariah200 It’s clear this Mariah200 commenter and editor is protecting this page from anyone else who contributes to it (good or bad) for some odd and emotional reason. It's against community guidelines to try and block me just because you want to control a story on a page, that's WP:EW. Now, I didn’t continue editing on Wiki because I have a lot to learn and I learned of editors like you who try to attack and limit new users Mariah200. I didn’t know this was such a negative community when I joined and I don’t want to participate in foolishness. What’s disheartening are editors like you who make people not want to join the Wiki Community. I NEVER vandalized this page. All the contributions I made were from valid sources and done because I found positive edits that could improve the page. Givana Angela(talk) 08:35, 6 August 2020 (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.