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. Tone 17:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Jack Parsons (entrepreneur)

Jack Parsons (entrepreneur) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After Curdles significant edits, I wish to raise a discussion around deleting this page. Notability, source material and verifiable evidence. There are 100s of people in UK business with awards doing good work and very few create their own page. Just up for discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billiebluebelle ( talk • contribs) 09:43, August 6, 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Completing nomination on behalf of above user--text is copied from their edit summary when applying the tag, and seemed like adequate rationale. I have not yet formed an opinion on the matter. @ Billiebluebelle: If you wish to nominate other articles for deletion, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. -- Finngall ^talk 15:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Finngall ^talk 15:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Finngall ^talk 15:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• DeleteApologies a bit new to this, but I will remember to sign off correctly and try to adhere to convention. This article was originally created by a PR company and in my opinion, based on the entries made, it has been used primarily as a PR vehicle for some time. It has been repeatedly been subjected to additions from anonymous contributors which have placed uncited references ranging from the subjects net worth to recent activities, mostly with the same grammar and syntax. That is not, however, the main reason to consider deletion. A previous contributor raised the question of notability and reliable sources. I am sure the subject is a decent, worthy and pleasant individual with very postive objectives, however, this is not a "notable topic which has gained significant attention by the world at large". It would be fair to suggest that many people in UK business are CEOS, many have won awards at the hundreds of award ceremonies in the UK, and they do not appear within Wikipedia. The other key players within the subjects organisation do not have Wikipedia pages, and yet they seem to contribute just as much to the organisation's aims.

"Wikipedia is not a promotional medium" and from the outset with this article created by a public relations company, I would suggest that this article has taken the form of a promotional article. It has had no sourcing, or mainly poor sourcing, with little if any reliable secondary sourcing. To summarise current 11 sources of reference, three are aligned to companies house information, one from youtube, one from UK newspaper The Telegraph, and the rest appear to be online comments. Whilst the subject has some worthy aims in the broader context of UK business, digital business and young people entering the workplace, I would suggest it is not notable and a re-read of the current article and the now-deleted additions, it has the distinct tone of either self-promotion and/or publicity, without real notability. Billiebluebelle ( talk) 09:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I feel this is a personal attack which been going on for months. A number of reason why this account should stay. Just google the impact that this young lad is having on the world for young people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:5005:b400:24eb:66c:9ba:1669 ( talk • contribs) 17:22, August 7, 2019 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable busibnessman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not notable- I did a bit of work removing promotional stuff, and trying to improve it last week, but was hard up finding anything it can be improved with. There are a few passing mentions around, but nothing really in depth. Most of the refs aren't very good- of the present 11 sources, two are articles written by the subject themselves, 3 are primary sources from Companies house and a notice of liquidation; the two "awards" arent really notable, and are sourced only to the companies giving the awards (subject appears to also be a judge on the panel for one now?) Most seem to be just recruitment PR fluff, and I suspect not independent either, except for the Telegraph piece. Curdle ( talk) 10:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Vanity article perhaps? Hardly do I ever vote for delete but this individual is non-notable and there is no significant coverage of him or his companies...if this article stays then how about one about the band me and my friends formed as teenagers? Antonio El Birthday Boy Martin ( Happy birthday to me! Happy birthday to me! Happy birthday, happy biirthdaaayy, happy birthdaaay tooo meeee!) 04:37, 13 August, 2019 (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.