Talk:Andrew Hallam

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 10 February 2020 by reviewer Sulfurboy (talk · contribs).

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

tags

Justlettersandnumbers can you clarify why you believe this subject isn't notable and what sources you consider to be unreliable? Also, what evidence do you have that the page creator has a close connection to the subject? A tone related tag might be more appropriate. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Sulfurboy:

COI/PAID: Elysiumgate has since 2013 made no edit unconnected with either AES International or with two people associated with it, Samuel Instone and this person. Here he/she writes "I feel now we have more substance to add".
Sources: I looked at refs #1 and #5; both are the usual promotional materials masquerading as independent journalism.
Notability: I just don't see it. Not everybody has a million dollars, but as a measure of wealth it is a completely trivial amount – just about anyone with a two-bedroom flat anywhere near central London has more than that, for example. He's written some books, but I see no evidence that anyone has paid any attention to them. Teaching and blogging are two very commonplace activities. I also note that both DGG and Praxidicae declined earlier submissions of this draft. Unless I've missed something here, I think it's a candidate for AfD. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JLAN and just having worked in this area for years, this has all the tells of paid editing. There's also some off-wiki evidence that I'll submit if needed (though it'll take me a while to get around to it.) Praxidicae (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae and Justlettersandnumbers, this all sounds good. I'm fine if y'all want to take it to AfD, although I think its hard to get past the CNBC article. It might have a bit of puff to it, but it looks in line with other profiles of the same nature on that site and I'm not seeing any indication that its a paid for article, same with the Seattle Times article, then again I could be missing something, sites have been getting progressively better at hiding paid for articles. I'm going to cut and slash the article a little and try to get it down to bare bones to remove any neutrality issues. Sulfurboy (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that the sources themselves were paid for but the creator certainly was or at the very least has a COI. Praxidicae (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, Hmm, then I guess I'm not understanding where the concern about notability is coming from then. I've gone ahead and slashed the article down to to bare bones. If it looks good to everyone I'll remove the tags, but keep it on my watchlislt in case the page creator comes back and tries to add back promotional material. Sulfurboy (talk) 15:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sulfurboy, can we go ahead and remove the tags please? I answered the questions from Praxidicae on my talk page. Please do let me know how I can resolve these issues. Thanks.--Elysiumgate (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, because you Elysiumgate, have not disclosed nor have the other issues been addressed. Praxidicae (talk) 15:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review under new article curation / review

IMO the sourcing satisifies wp:GNG and I'm removing that one tag and am marking it as reviewed. That doesn't mean that it's OK, just that I'm not taking it to AFD, given that it already has tags. Looks like there is a lot of history here and now the article is a stub. I don't want to interfere with any ongoing efforts to fix; if anyone disagrees please revert/reverse me. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]