Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Isaacs
- 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. Consensus is that this is undeclared paid promotional editing. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Oliver Isaacs (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)
This is a fairly spammy biography of a fairly non-notable person. There is a suspicion that it was submitted by an undisclosed paid editor (although I do not know the details of how that was determined).
The first version of the article was a blatant copyright violation (see Talk:Oliver Isaacs for details) and could have easily been speedily deleted but since then there has been a good faith effort to clean it up. It still scores 49% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector and I don't think that it is fixable without reducing the article to less than a valid stub.
So to the question of notability. This guy does get a write up in Forbes, for what that is worth, in one of their endless "Top n young x" type articles, and he does get called an "influencer", whatever that means. He has even managed to get himself described as a "genius" (presumably not in the Wile E. Coyote sense of the term) by some of the rather thin sources. I don't see enough notability to justify an article about him and certainly not a plagiarised hagiography. DanielRigal (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. No point in stubbing this back to zero, so WP:TNT applies. BTW the undisclosed paid editor issue is now explained with the appropriate template on the article's talkpage. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per nom. The notability is all puffery and no substance. MasterB1aster (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
*Speedy Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikieditions (talk • contribs) 05:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC) — Wikieditions (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
UPE meat comments preserved
|
|---|
|
Hi -I've added / transferred my points from the talk page here> Just to clarify, I'm a fan of Oliver before you start accusing me of things and have been following him for over a year on his social media channels and learnt a lot from him. I look up to him as a role model. I believe there is an instigated campaign to remove this article despite it meeting the notability and copyright guideliness. He is more than notable based on the below. Oliver is a tech entrepreneur, having founded a number of well known business, cryptocurrency investor and social media influencer with a huge following online - he is also public figure verified across his channels on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat. He has links to some of the most well known / famous influencers, and entrepreneurs in the world. He has been featured among many others in Business Insider, International Business Times, The Next Web, Forbes (by notable writers) and has a huge following, network and links online. His videos receive in excess of a few hundred thousand views each time and he is linked to some very well known notable public figures. To answer your points -you clearly write on the talk page: I had never heard of the guy until yesterday. This line demonstrates bias - you can try to explain it all you want but you are not following the guidelines and this is your own view / opinion too. I have no need to report you but as I mentioned earlier it looks odd that you seem very biased. I was merely making the point on the talk page there is no reason for you to have heard of Oliver as you don't seem to do anything related to tech investing or social media. Re paid editor status not too sure why you think this is the case as there seems to be no link or proof of this. It seems to be merely an accusation and innocent until proven guilty should apply - again another way to discredit this person falsely - I'd recommend an investigation to disprove this. As far as I can see there is no proof of this and someone who had their account blocked mentioned it - which doesnt seem to be even related or linked to the original author. The guidelines for notability clearly state: Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity. Indeed, there are many people on wikipedia who are not very famous - there are different levels of fame / being a public figure is different and he is clearly notable based on his achievements and reliable sources and much more notable than many people with existing pages- 15 million network, huge following, numerous full featured articles in major publications, verified across all social media platforms, links to very famous social media influencers like Julius Dein etc. You calling international business times not reliable again seems odd - not sure you can get more reliable than IB Times/. Having this amount of followers and network he has also makes him worthwhile let alone all the other accomplishments he has done. I saw in Julius Dein's talk page who has 15 million followers you wanted to remove this article - then you changed your mind- looks like your just going around pages trying to have them deleted. Your mentioned the article is plagiarised / copyright issues - its not / minimal -it clearly states on Oliver's site this in the middle of the site under any text:All rights released of content / pictures / and text and available / permission granted for the public domain - a similar line is also written under his pictures. As per the guidelines freely available content is permitted. Its difficult to re-write some bits as a lot of it is stats and facts which can't be re-worded. I have even spent time trying to re-word it and you keep reverting my changes and references everytime - another way you come across bias. As per wikipedia's copyright guidelines: Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. In all cases, an inline citation following the quote or the sentence where it is used is required. Copyrighted text that is used verbatim must be attributed with quotation marks or other standard notation, such as block quotes. It looks like you are clinging on to anything you can think of to remove the article - thats why it led me to believe you have another agenda. Under the notability guidelines I believe Oliver merits an article: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. I believe the article is notable due to the below: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. = INC, Business Insider, International Business Timees, Forbes (from reputable writers) etc "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. = INC, Business Insider, International Business Timees, Forbes (from reputable writers) etc --wikieditions (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding Here is a list of all the sources I could find about Oliver INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES Search for Oliver in this Scholarly Journal on page 8 : http://docdro.id/6g1mbTH Quote = Overall, these leaders combine strong development experience with seasoned advisors who have generated significant accomplishments in the technology industry. Oliver Isaacs, tech influencer and investor, expressed a similar sentiment, stating that the organization “has a very strong management team with serious credentials.” Forbes authors are professionally vetted and, in most cases, may have credentials that allow the specific author to qualify under the self-published source criteria (established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, but must never be used as third-party citations on statements relating to living persons). e.g The author is very pronounced in the financial and cryptocurrency investing world: Charles Bovaird, a financial writer and consultant, is the author of more than 200+ publications covering digital currencies, which appear in CoinDesk, Forbes and Bitcoin Market Journal. Mr. Bovaird has worked for financial institutions including State Street, Moody’s Analytics and Citizens Commercial Banking, and his work has appeared in publications including Forbes, Washington Post and Fortune. He has given speeches on financial literacy for Mensa and Boston Rotaract. The author is very pronounced in the financial and cryptocurrency investing world: His work has appeared in publications including Forbes, Washington Post and Fortune. He has given speeches on financial literacy for Mensa and Boston Rotaract. --wikieditions (talk) 22:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC) Based off Isaacs' initial plagiarism scores, it is apparent that the article was made rapidly and haphazardly. After the pages most recent edit, his score has reduced significantly (15.3%). Now, with the inclusion of reputable sources Isaacs has been mentioned in (Forbes, businessinsider.com, huffpost,observer), he is in compliance with the Wiki's general nobility guidelines. His own personal following, his association with high-profile personnel, and the amount of coverage give enough reason to warrant the validity of celebrity. The new edit is also compliance with the biography of living persons stipulations. Despite small transgressions, there should be no reason for admins to resort to speedy deletion. Everything from this point on can be edited and reworked, same as every other page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gserrano0 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
INC https://www.inc.com/john-white/top-uk-influencer-oliver-isaacs-reveals-what-it-ta.html SOCIAL MEDIA WEEK https://socialmediaweek.org/blog/2017/10/18-experts-reveal-top-instagram-growth-hacks/ THE NEXT WEB BUSINESS INSIDER JAPAN TODAY FORBES HUFFINGTONPOST BUZZFEED FORBES EVAN CARMICHAEL INC https://www.inc.com/melissa-thompson/3-big-lessons-small-retailers-can-learn-from-walma.html OBSERVER FORBES
|
*Keep - The page does meet WP:GNG criteria as the content is cited with reliable sources i.e Inc.com, Business Insider, The Observer, Huffpost among others. The biography is notable enough, just needs cleanup and re-writing to fullfill WP:NPOV. 39.54.19.7 (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Keep I have edited for WP:NPOV as I think there was a case to answer there, however the article fulfils WP:NOTE and WP:GNG through there being substantial write-ups beyond trivial mention in a number of high-class third-party sources, which I have added. My edits avoid the need for WP:TNT Richardaldinho (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Sock edits above stricken. — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete promotional puffery with the sources merely, as pointed out above, nothing special and quite routine. What tips this over the edge then is the concerted UPE effort to get this article kept as evidenced above and the need to enforce our terms of use. jcc (tea and biscuits) 14:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Keep
for reasons cited by User:Berean Hunter, who is not a sock. His comments should not be struck.Meets WP:GNG FWIW, I posted notice of this discussion at Article Rescue squad. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- That is me striking through UPE meats above. I have not registered a "keep" here. :) This is an effort being put forth to promote this article aubject. The SPI case is here.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- That is me striking through UPE meats above. I have not registered a "keep" here. :) This is an effort being put forth to promote this article aubject. The SPI case is here.
- Keep Page has a lot of reliable sources, so that proves that the person is recognized and has some credibility. As a owner of a few companies I think he is notable for having a Wikipedia article. The article is nicely structured, almost entirely cleaned of copyrighted text and I think it deserves to stay on Wikipedia. --Semso98 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as a TOU violation on a BLP subject matter. Notability doesn't even matter here, the content has no right to be on Wikipedia to even be assessed for notability, so I'm not going to play that game and argue against it or for it. I'll also go ahead and spell out why we typically delete UPE pieces of BLPs: UPE opens them up to blackmail and extortion (see both the Orangemoody article and LTA case). While this is not an OM claim, we almost always act in favour of deletion of BLPs in cases like this, and helping UPEs to further exploit a living person (as they probably did to !vote keep on this AfD) is contrary to simple human decency. There is no need to even assess this for any other factors. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:46, 10 November 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.