Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Phillips (author)

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. Michig (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Phillips (author)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources actually discussing the subject to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Msnicki (talk) 06:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. To be notable as an author of non-fiction books requires reviews. I found one review, in People Management magazine.[1] That's not enough. No evidence that he's widely considered an expert or has received other significant media coverage. Colapeninsula (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've deleted a LOT of the article and the original version can be seen here. The prior version was clearly written by a paid/COI editor sent here to promote Phillips and to be honest, I'd have endorsed a speedy deletion of the prior version as unambiguous promotion. I'll see if I can find anything since there is somewhat of an assertion of notability here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I tried searching and other than a review for his 2014 book, there's just nothing out there about this guy. Two reviews aren't enough to show a true depth of coverage or to prove that this guy would pass notability guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I'm kind of getting some serious paid editing vibes from this. I'm also somewhat leery of the fact that this same editor has tried to recreate Jonathan Gabay in the mainspace along with several other editors, which gives off the impression that they're editing on behalf of a marketing company. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - it looks like this is a concentrated effort by a group of people to create articles for authors that have published via Kogan Page or London Wall Publishing. I've opened up an SPI here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My sweeps did not reveal much. Problem is, Simon Phillips is a somewhat common name in Britain and it is hard filtering out all the other Simon Phillips es, such as the director, the tutor, the drummer, etc etc. Looks like his book on Amazon has not had any customer reviews -- I know, not an official sign, but for me an indication of a lack of notability. Agree with Tokyogirl79s concerns about SPI or paid editing.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:51, 27 June 2015 (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.