Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Sharman

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sharman

[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 personality. unreliable/connected sources. Some are interviews, not secondary sources. ToT89 (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 21:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete: Probably has a claim to WP:GNG via a Tech Central article, an interview with a local radio station, and this Biz News interview (although the last one may not be the most reliable, being a self-described "disruptive internet publishing business"). The article should probably say something about the company Retroviral though, as that's entirely what these articles are about. — MarkH21 (talk) 01:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Upon second thought, the interviews are moreso primary sources than independent secondary sources as suggested by nom. Revised to delete by failure to meet GNG. — MarkH21 (talk) 05:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interviews of the sort that are the references here do not show notability, for the subject can say essentially what he pleases. And, if they are mostly about the company, they wouldn't show notability for him. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Surely [1],[2] are not interviews. He was featured in the Marie Claire naked edition here... along side other notable individuals here. The subject was also listed on the Mail & Guardian 200 Young South Africans here. Mail & Guardian being a reliable source. This clearly shows that the subject makes a mark in his field of work and shows some significance. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but those are passing mentions / lists – not significant coverage. The first one (200 Young South Africans entry) might count as significant coverage (if we ignore that entries can be self-nominations), but even then there doesn't seem to exist enough evidence of significant coverage from independent secondary reliable sources to clearly pass GNG or WP:BASIC. — MarkH21 (talk) 00:30, 10 April 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.