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. Being bold and deleting this one early.
Missvain (
talk) 18:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
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, Silkeop3, has been blocked for spamming. thanks.
Britishfinance (
talk) 09:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)reply
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)reply
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)reply
Delete passing mentions are not enough to show notability.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 19:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - confirmed paid-for spam written by a sockpuppet.
MER-C 02:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete not enough in-depth coverage to prove Phoenix passes
WP:GNG. Best,
GPL93 (
talk) 00:50, 13 January 2020 (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.