Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Portia Antonia Alexis

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 speedy delete. For many reasons, including: borderline WP:CSD#A7 after some of the sillier claims are removed; borderline WP:CSD#G11; likely WP:CSD#G5 (assuming this isn't the paid editor's first rodeo); WP:SNOW; and what I find to be a credible claim of harm to the article subject. AFD is not for shaming wrongdoers, especially those who may or may not have been hoodwinked by unscrupulous UPE's. It's for removing inappropriate articles, and it is crystal clear this article won't be determined to be appropriate in 6 more days of discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Portia Antonia Alexis

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

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

non notable "economist" - sourced exclusively to embellished press releases, fake news sites (like California Herald) and press releases. A search reveals nothing in the way of independent or even truthful coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:ACADEMIC. I find no coverage that is reliable or isn't churnalism. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the article admits the subject is "pursuing post-graduate doctoral study," hence the likelihood of meeting WP:NPROF is slim to none, and the vague claim of being "a department member" at LSE adds nothing to establish notability; to wit, I'm a doctoral student and I teach courses, therefore I am a department member at my institution also, but certainly that gives nothing toward passing WP:GNG.

Also, I note that many of the IPs currently editing this article are from the same UK ISP and range (83.216.*.*). It could mean nothing, but it could suggest some autobiographical or other issues.

Finally, looking at the contributions of the author User:Rubelantri, a lot of the articles they've created or edited have been worked on in alphabetical order. Maybe it's nothing, but it suggests that there might be some undisclosed paid editing, i.e., going down a client list alphabetically? I don't mean to cast aspersions, but that did jump out as slightly odd. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see no signs of WP:NPROF here. The best case for GNG is via two profiles: [1] in The Statesman (India) and [2] in Manchester Evening News. The first profile raises a number of red flags for me, and I doubt its independence. I'm not sure on the 2nd. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that these sources are questionable. The byline on the Statesman piece is the Statesman News Service (SNS) Web Desk, suggesting it may be aggregated, possibly from a press release, rather than written in house (to wit, it seems highly doubtful that an Indian newspaper interviewed her). As for the the Manchester Evening News piece, if one clicks the name of the author, it notes that it is an advertorial, suggesting it might be paid coverage. A search on that author's name also indicates that she is an "advertiser" and "creative copyrighter," indicating that it is likely not an actual news piece. Most of the given sources seem to fall into one or both of these categories. It's also quite telling that these two sources and several others were published either in January, right before this article was created, or on April 3, right before it ended up here. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's certainly no WP:NPROF, and Kinu has given solid form to my doubts about possible GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ridiculous over-the-top promotional silliness, fairly obviously created by a paid editor. No evidence of wiki-notability. --JBL (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, by WP:GNG. SemiHypercube 15:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero GNG and a strong UPE/PROM case; strange technique used in the creation of this article which seemed to by-pass the new page curation tool? Pinging MER-C and NinjaRobotPirate who might want to look into the authorship history of this blatnant spam piece. Britishfinance (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like everyone in the article history has already been blocked. If there's more to do, feel free to let me know. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for that - I am guessing that it is worth watchlisting the various PROMO articles this group has created, as they will return to move them from Draft? Britishfinance (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: promotional resume-like article; the subject cannot meet WP:NPROF having only ever written two papers (unless those two are ridiculously groundbreaking) and falls short of WP:GNG. As mentioned by Kinu, the Manchester Evening News article is labeled "advertorial" here, while the Statesman article is from the "SNS Web Desk" and the International Business Times article is from the "IBT News Desk". — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the subject of page being harassed in real life due to talk page speedy deletion required/ please delete page immediately if the article is up for deletion as the subject is now being harassed in real life. speedy deletion required — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandacar2020 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC) — Amandacar2020 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

We're in no position to prove what you're saying is true; the proper venue for that sort of thing is having her contact WP:OTRS via email. We're especially unlikely to heed a single-purpose account on an article which has a history of mercenaries editing it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 18:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSure, she'll send an email with her ID..
Comment. You mean your client is embarrased that her BLP has been shown to be a paid for promotional piece? Britishfinance (talk) 18:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentPerson is not my 'client' happy to prove so subject has been caught between various arguments back and forths between various admins/editors/pages which are of no relationce to her as such she is being harassed in real life by various contributors for arguments and issues which have no relation to her.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Amandacar2020 (talk • contribs)

Amandacar2020 Then how do you know she's being harassed in real life? Praxidicae (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if that is the case, then she needs to email our volunteer responce team as opposed to having someone who, for all we know, is on her payroll given that she's evidently paid for an article, try and get the page deleted in an effort to save face. We are in absolutely no position to judge whether or not the claims of her being harassed are true, but I can imagine that if she is being harassed, it's the editors she's hired doing the harassing. Buying Wikipedia articles is often a protection racket style of extortion. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 18:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having googled the BLP subject, it is clear that her main area of distinction is in self-promotion (this is particularly funny Portia Antonia Alexis, and complete with standard professional image). Your client has got spooked that when examined, her BLP was a clear fail, and now wants you to clean it up. Who says being a UPE is all fun. Britishfinance (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't always fault subjects for the shitty hack job black hat SEO farms do - they can be convincing but it's on people for not doing their research before they pay some shitty firm to spam google and Wikipedia with fake articles about them. Praxidicae (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Especially as it's been a while since one hit the news. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 19:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam, cruft, and then more spam. Fails WP:ANYBIO. ——SN 54129 19:23, 8 April 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.