Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leon Emirali (2nd nomination): Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
context on protection
m Do not transclude protection templates
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
<noinclude>{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}</noinclude>
===[[:Leon Emirali]]===
===[[:Leon Emirali]]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}}
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}}

Revision as of 15:30, 9 October 2023

Leon Emirali

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Leon Emirali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page was created by a now banned sockpuppet, and the previous AfD [1] was swayed to no consensus entirely by related and now banned sockpuppets [2] This appears to be a non notable bio of a PR adviser. Sourcing fails WP:ANYBIO or WP:JOURNALIST, despite having written a few articles. Also fails WP:GNG as most sources are neither independent nor secondary. The subject is not notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

deleteStill lacks WP:GNG no new coverage since the last discussion which per the nom was swayed.Expressive101 (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Account issues aside, the subject of this page appears notable and meets WP:GNG. There have been a number of changes since the first AfD, including the piece in the New Statesman, which is particularly strong. That, along with The i, PR Week, Spear’s articles would definitely push this into WP:GNG territory for a WP:BLP. Muhammad Musaiyab (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)— Muhammad Musaiyab (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    Welcome to Wikipedia. To meet GNG, the subject must have significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. If the New Statesman is "particularly strong" we are not there yet. The New Statesman article is about Steve Barclay, but it quotes Emirali, who it has to introduce. The sum of the information about Emirali is:

    Emirali, who is now a PR consultant and has previously stood as a Conservative council candidate, was asked during the interview if “part-privatisation” could help the NHS in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.

    That is not significant coverage. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole article is based on what Emirali said. It wouldn’t have existed if he didn’t say it. It’s in an independent and reputable source. I fear you may have political prejudices impacting your judgement. Muhammad Musaiyab (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Interviews are not independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This article was not an interview. An interview he gave made a separate news story in a publication independent of the original. Muhammad Musaiyab (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole article is based on what Emirali said. That is, an interview. I have quoted the part of the article that is independent. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:INTERVIEW might be helpful. ✶Mitch199811✶ 19:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for mentioning WP:INTERVIEW. While interviews are important, a combination of sources, including the New Statesman article, meets the notability criteria for the subject as outlined in WP:GNG. Muhammad Musaiyab (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we assume that New Statesman contributes to notability (which I have to because NS wants me to subscribe to read the article), you need two more, non-primary (and non-subscription), sources. I have already eliminated the rest of your sources as probably having PR associated with them or being too close to him so you need to dig around the article or online to find more. ✶Mitch199811✶ 11:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has enough coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RRezu (talk • contribs) 18:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC) — RRezu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    @RRezu Could you please elaborate otherwise this is a !vote. ✶Mitch199811✶ 20:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I have identified thirteen sources. PRweek, used three times, seems to not contribute to GNG. It looks like it is purely made as a PR boost. Spears500 seems too promotional and the whole site also looks promotional like PRweek. iNews is a primary source. Telegraph and CityAM are his author pages. The Times was written by him. GrowthBusiness is an interview. Im guessing by the titles and the names of the websites that the other six sources probably also fail at adding to GNG. ✶Mitch199811✶ 18:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PRovoke Media mentions Emirali three times:
    1. Mentioning he was appointed.
    2. Saying he was an advisor during Brexit
    3. Saying they will help the office.
    That might count as enough but it really just doesn't seem like that much substance. But the whole article is about as long as a 5th grader's essay. PLMR, the subject of the article, is an I-dunno business but looks like it publishes PR for money. Afterwards I looked at their about page, and it looks like they might also be pay-for-PR.
    I also did a recheck of PRweek, from what I gather they too either focus primarily on reporting on how to maintain reputation, posting articles for pay, or both. ✶Mitch199811✶ 11:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wandering admin note: given the sock disruption at the prior AfD and some new accounts here, I've E/C'ed this page. Anyone unable to edit may use the Talk. Star Mississippi 15:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leon_Emirali_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1179352361"