Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy Phoenix

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Guy Phoenix}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Guy_Phoenix Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Guy Phoenix}})

Nottingham property developer whose RS is from asking £10m for a house in Nottingham (despite some of the RS, £10m is a long way from the UK's most expensive house); and even that RS is mostly press releases from Phoenix (he added a charging station for an electric flying car). Zero SIGCOV (or really any COV on him, outside of his £10m house) in the main UK papers (e.g. The Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Financial Times, The Times, or The Independant). Article has a WP:PROMO feel (and I suspect some WP:UPE behind this). I ask the community to decide, Britishfinance (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Britishfinance (talk) 20:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. My initial thoughts were the article should be deleted, as it has a promotional tone and lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. However, outside of the news of the £10m home, Guy Phoenix has had some news coverage for his property developing business, albeit mainly in local Nottinghamshire newspapers. There are sources that Guy Phoenix has won some UK architecture awards. It's a marginal decision for me, but possibly newsworthy enough to keep. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

:* Comment His "awards" are non-notable trade awards (e.g. in return for a fee you can "earn" your award) – they do not get covered in any proper UK RS (unlike the notable UK property awards). Also noting that the author, {{noping|Silkeop3}}, has been blocked for spamming. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

:** Comment: Thank you for that information. When I voted "Weak Keep" I wasn't aware that the author had been blocked for spamming. I would have no objections to this article being deleted. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. The coverage found are merely passing mentions and of the subject, not enough for a page now. A case of WP:TOOSOON. Lapablo (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Delete passing mentions are not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - confirmed paid-for spam written by a sockpuppet. MER-C 02:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
• Delete not enough in-depth coverage to prove Phoenix passes WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 00:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - spam for a local real estate salesperson. I remind the reader that if this were 2008, we could assume good faith, but in face of clear evidence in 2020, this is just abuse of a charity. Bearian (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.