Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Enrico Williams

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Sam Enrico Williams

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Sam Enrico Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non notable crypto business person with almost no actual coverage and created and move warred by an SPA. Fails GNG. Praxidicae (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable as a magazine publisher (since Tramp Magazine does not, in itself, appear to be notable). Not notable as a cryptocurrency trader (sources related to this endeavor appear to be largely self-published). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
• Delete There are is a dearth of persistent and in-depth coverage in reliable sources to pass the minimum requirements of WP:ANYBIO; the subject has achieved only passing mentions in outlets—consisting of blogs, directories and social media—and even less in the literature—which consists of his own books and Wikipedia rip offs. ——SerialNumber54129 15:54, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per above - David Gerard (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Keep The article has been re-written. Non-cryptocurrency news, non-primary and Reliable sources have been researched and incorporated into the article to pass GNG, like this article in the Evening Standard, which notes that "the brothers’ first newspaper interview" and "Update [28 December 2018]: Representatives of 50 Cent have contacted the Evening Standard to say that 50 Cent is not a friend of Sam and Steve Williams. We are happy to update matters"

The Daily Express which notes that Sam Enrico Williams, of cryptocurrency due diligence platform Zloadr.com, told Express.co.uk: “The crypto market is still extremely volatile so you need to keep an eye on your assets 24/7.“The market can be brutal.

Other notable resources that prove the validity of this are Metro, Face 2 Face and others, moreover the sources are independent.

The idea of Tramp Magazine is no-longer an equation in the current article since re-writing has removed it WikiDan61 and I have concerns on the ability of someone self publishing in the Evening Standard or even the Express.

These resources have a chain of article editing/editors with the Evening Standard lead editor being George Osborne, Daily Express lead editor is Gary Jones just to mention a few of the resources used. These resources do not fall in the category of Tabloid Journalism

WP:ANYBIO Serial Number 54129 David Gerardare basically additional GNGs and I will quote Wikipedia,People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who does not meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.Christopher Odhiambo (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Strongly Keep Someone to justify the deletion claims after the article has been re-edited?Christopher Odhiambo (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

You can comment as many times as you want but you can only vote once. GPL93 (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I agree with WikiDan61 VViking_TalkEdits 14:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Per WikiDan61, appears to be a case of WP:PROMO as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep The article is relevant and references abide with Wiki's GNG policy. This bio does qualify for an individual who has achieved notability and widely published. I could go into the facts, but they are clearly visible themselves. Looking again, it is clear that the issues raised seem to be without merit; but personal endeavors are being expressed. Sources submitted for the article are from well-respected publications. If the content written comes across as so-called promo, easily make amendments to the copy otherwise state clearly and show an example of where promo is being considered as a genuine reason for deletion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.52.36.59 (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Given that this IP address has only contributed to this AfD and the AfD for Williams’ company, this vote may be a case of WP:SOCK. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete, per WikiDan61, Serial Number 54129, et al. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete The user who started the article has now been indefinitely blocked for UPE, COI, and accusing others of COI's. Kb03 (talk) 20:35, 4 February 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.