Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Patel (entrepreneur)

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Patel (entrepreneur)

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

A majority of the sources link to a personal commercial blog or a web article where the subject apparently is a contributor (e.g. Forbes); the article reads as a self promotional page - no other main articles link here according to "what links here"; the article fails muster in terms of notability or "what Wikipedia is not". It looks and feels like a CV/ marketing piece. Please discuss Jay(Talk) 02:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 03:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I found nothing better and none of this has any solidly convincing signs, some information and links but still not convincing enough. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. promotional article about the founder of several very minor companies. The references are primarily notices about small investments in his firms. DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources provided are enough to meet WP:GNG as well as WP:BASIC. SwankChipmunk (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree.. "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - all the sources are groups where there are reasonable grounds to believe the subject was employed or contributed. Jay(Talk) 22:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As stated, there is nothing of value in this remarkably poorly sourced article which serves little or no purpose other than promoting its subject. Megajeffzilla (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2016 (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.