Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Heron (2nd nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Although the numbers are relatively even the consensus needs to be jusged against policy not headcount and the keep side has not refuted the delete side argument that notability has not been demonsrated by multiple non trivial sources. Happy to review but would want to see better sourcing if I were to consider relisting or reversing myself Spartaz Humbug! 03:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Heron

edit
AfDs for this article:
Luke Heron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is the second time this article has been nominated and was previously deleted in August 2008. As with the original AFD, this article does not pass on basis of notability as per WP:BIO and potential conflict of interest as per WP:COI. The subject of this article does not meet notability standards. Nearly all references to this subject have been prompted by the subject himself (i.e., personal website) with only a trivial mention in a reputable news article as one of many professionals. As per his own website, there is nothing particularly notable about his career and he has not garnered any significant coverage from any real news source. Additionally, as with the previous article that was deleted, this article was created by a Single-purpose accounts whose only other edits relate to linking two articles to this one, prompting concerns over WP:COI. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 23:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Looking at a facebook group [1] ("We Think Luke Heron Should Mellow Out") and the fact that his biggest claim to fame is being sacked from Merrill Lynch, the inclusion of this article strikes me as particularly inappropriate for an apparently ambitious but non-notable individual. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 23:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it was me that published the article. I am wanting to develop a series of pieces on young and note-worthy pioneers in the junior venture capital and entrepreneurial space. Heron seemed an obvious first choice as he was a well-known share tipster (I couldn't remember or find out with which organisation so have not detailed as such - though his website references several). The reason he is interesting was the formation and development of a number of funds in the alternative investment asset space. He set up a company called Storyboard Assets Plc which invests in original illustrative art (I found one seperate link referencing his purchase of a winnie the pooh book which i detailed in EH Shepard page), is a director of alternative investment assets plc (which i found from companies house, again with no independent references so have not detailed it - but from printed media (antiques trade gazette) he has launched a Titanic Investment fund. My point is that you are clearly very experienced in venture capital, but this is not an advertisment (I am not sure what it would be advertising), nor have I included any references to his website (which I agree makes stupid boasts about Merrill Lynch), but he is a fascinating character that is pioneering an interesting area. The FT article mostly talks about his company Storyboard Assets Plc (www.storyboardassets.com - I see he founded it). I want to publish pieces of a similar nature on Tom Winnifrith, add further to Conrad Windham, Luke Johnson etc as my interest is young (I cannot define this, though at 42 I consider myself too old, wrong profession and, alas, too poor for inclusion) entrepreneurs and venture capital players. I read over the previous Luke Heron article that was deleted. I hope I have addressed your concerns. I will continue to add more as i can dig it up, but the four sources are all independent. I have checked him out on facebook - I agree he needs to mellow out too, not sure we can link that into wiki though - surprised facebook hasnt deleted as surely that is libellous. Needless to say, I am in no way connected to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MyraSendak (talk • contribs) 23:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There is no significant coverage of this individual in reliable sources. The first ref (financial times) is just a passing mention; the second is nothing at all, just his name on a list. The third ref is self-published, and the fourth is also a blurb written by him. Nowhere is there an article about this individual. Plus, the article's self-congratulatory tone ("well-known", "winning a job", "forging a career") is inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article is currently being trimmed right back to the bare bones to remove all the peackock wording, and I am encouraging the editor to rewrite it in a more encyclopedic nature. I would ask that the closing admin gives this AFD the full length of time to allow for the rewriting, and does not speedy delete this article. Stephen! Coming... 16:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentI am a little perplexed at the strength of feeling about this. I have read through Wiki deletion information and notability guidelines and still nonethewiser about the specifics that are relevant with this individual. I think perhaps my contribution was not very well crafted and perhaps not deposited in the right place. I have cut it back to its bear bones and will now look to build it back up. Not that this is the right forum for discussion of his notability but in the UK, he is a fairly well known character. Heron was a presenter of a Net based TV game show called Trading Places (struggling to find links - he devised the show), he was one of the most quoted share tipsters (again not sure how to detail this short of finding links to articles that quote him) and was responsible for moving share prices on the London markets everyday for a number of years (I was one of many investors that both suffered and gained as a result of this). Again, I want to keep this relevant as I think the interest and notibility in this character is with his transforming unique areas of collecting into legitimate investments and vehicles.

    Following your comments I have re-read the Financial Times article. Lets be fair about it - I would say 30% of it is about Heron and his company Storyboard Assets Plc, the rest is on the wider collectables market. It is untrue to state that the FT piece makes only a passing mention of his efforts in this arena. If the FT has covered it there will be other papers too and I will try and dig these up whilst also working on other investors. As I say, I think the 30% of the article that talks about Storyboard and illustrative art and specifically turning the art into an investable asset class is clearly a breakthrough and most certainly notable.

    I am new to wiki - I have a genuine passion in junior venture capital and those in the UK markets that are developing it within the smaller company scene. Heron, Duncan Bannatyne (Dragons Den, BBC2), Scott Fletcher (North England Entrepreneur of the year), Tom Winnifrith (Serial tipster, entrepreneur and fund maanger), James Caan (Dragons Den and venture capital) etc are investors that are changing the landscape. These are "celebrity" investors that are infectiously impacting how money is made (and lost!) in the UK and further afield. They have collectively developed the concept of retail venture capital. ie venture capital for everyone. Again, this is very difficult to substantiate, but I am hoping that other contributors will in time find the time and will to offer their input. Again, I am hopeful that some more experienced wiki users that know more about Heron's background can usefully add some value to the article.

    I have decided to join the Task Force that overseas this area on Wiki. I hope (rather selfishly) that I might be able to learn more about this area and contribute in areas where I feel comfortable. In the meantime I really would appreciate all advice and input in any way shape or form, to allow me to develop as a wiki contributor. I would like the time and help to develop this area of venture capital into a real hive of encyclopedic information for the benefit of all. Finally, I accept the comments made that it sounded overly promotional. This was in large part to the fact I read up a lot from sources that I accept provide an inappropriate slant. I have removed all of these. I accept Heron's sacking is not notable and I accept describing him as "well-known" is not acceptable - I have amended the article significantly and taken out these peacock expressions. Please allow me the freedom to develop it and add further pieces and contributions in this area. Again, feedback and advice is greatly appreciate. I am keen to listen and to learn from you all.MyraSendak (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • MyraSendak: I appreciate your comments, but unfortunately my !vote will have to remain "delete" for now. The sources you have given say more about Heron's company than Heron himself, and also I should point out that his Storyboard Assets PLC is a company with only 3 employees. If he is a "celebrity investor" and is "revolutionizing" the field along with other young investors, there should be more written about him; if you can supply such sources, I will be willing to reconsider. I am leaving you another message on my talkpage with some editing tips. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, to the admin who closes this debate: if you do choose to delete, I would suggest userfying to User:MyraSendak/Luke Heron instead, so the user can work on it. If there is any doubt over the notability or any possibility that the individual might be article-worthy eventually, I don't see any harm in doing this. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I easily found enough Ghits to establish notability and was able to quickly add a couple of small bits of sourced content. I think the real issue is that the original author is new, and wasn't aware of the notability guidelines. The fact that Heron is indeed a pioneer-investor means that most of our sources will be online, rather than in academic journals, however I have found what are clearly reliable sources that can be used to build the article. I hope that editors who have already commented will perhaps monitor the article with an eye towards reconsidering. Doc Tropics 16:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ghits don't automatically confer notability, and you have to be careful using them to gauge it. I just did a search and most of the hits are either open wikis, Wikipedia mirrors, or social networking sites; especially with common names like this, you have to realize right off the bat than many hits you get will be for regular people who happen to have the same name. For instance, one of the hits on the first page is this twitter page (probably not our Luke Heron; his latesttweet is "2 more sleeps until I have to go back to school. Ah it's a toug life in Grade 1"); the closest to "notable" that I saw in the first page are this (a photographer's blog mentioning that he went to Heron's house, not notable at all), and this (essentially a link to Heron's blog, also not notable). That's it for the google web search; the google news search returned no hits at all other than Heron's own press release. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BLPs are especially significant areas of concern, and COI can often be an issue, so I backtracked the original author's talkpage contributions looking for evidence of it. At this point I'm reasonably satisfied that the author is what we might normally consider an "enthusiastic hobbiest" writing about a new wave of investment pioneers, rather than some sort of shill or puppet for the article's subject. Also based on talkpage comments, I'm satisfied that the author is trying to learn more about our policies, intends to follow them, and has a high probability of becoming a productive editor if encouraged, rather than discouraged, to contribute further. Doc Tropics 17:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed, I don't think MyraSendak is the article subject; this editor has expressed interest in creating lots of other biographies as well, and has edited some other articles, so I don't think s/he is just trying to promote the one guy. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am trying to please everyone here with my first real effort. I have taken out the green references. He owns the largest stake in a retailer called Green Baby but I cannot find any published detail other than at companies house www.companieshouse.gov.uk - but its not linkable as its a subscription service. His own website references Green Baby but does not detail how much he owns. Its a shame I cannot reference that as most UK people have heard of Green Baby - I will keep looking though as there must be an article somewhere. He historically owned one of the largest stakes in Good Energy Plc - the biggest green power producer in Britain. Again, the only references are shareholder lists and it seems he now holds his shares in a nominee account to hide detail of ownership. Good Energy is NOT listed on his own website. I think the article is now un-peacocked (is that a correct expression?). I have found links to articles about his art fund in some major press outlets so I will upload those. I am not sure why we cannot say Heron is pioneering collectables as an asset class. But I accept the input of other more experienced wiki people. I am obviously keen that this article should be allowed time to develop at the very least. I sincerely hope the article will be allowed to stay. Its not orphaned any longer it has had peacock stuff removed. As for notability, I am quickly getting the impression it all comes down to ones view on achievement or significance or relevance to the individual casting judgement. Clearly Heron is not Warren Buffett, but is developing an entirely new asset class which is surely fascinating and deserving of an encyclopedic entry. Again, I am very grateful for all the feedback that has been given. I am really enjoying editing and adding input - I have also applied for a mentor...here's hoping! MyraSendak (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The Financial Times story has pretty substantial coverage of this individual and his company. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The articles provide no significant coverage of the individual, and only the barest of the company. The FT story mentions the individual twice, providing exactly no information about him other than his role as owner of the company. Moreover, its coverage of the company itself is trivial--the story is on the business strategy. The other references have literally zero of substance about the subject. Coverage of a company without any reference to the accomplishments or actions of an associated individual do nothing to establish notability. Bongomatic 21:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per rʨanaɢ, whose sig makes my head hurt but whose deletion rationale is spot-on. Fails BIO; not notable. No sourcing to speak of. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 22:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I appreciate the sentiment wanting to help the author here having gone through this myself. But focus on the subject himself. He is a young business person much like many others. His net worth, at an impressive GBP 6 mln for a venture capitalist is nothing of particular note. He owns some businesses, so do a lot of people who fail WP:BIO. He was once mentioned briefly in an FT article to provide some color, there are people profiled like that in the FT and the WSJ every day who still fail WP:BIO. And aside from that most everything else on the web about Luke Heron is self promotion and clearly Wikipedia should not be a platform for promotion (WP:SOAP). I never want to discourage a new user but I am concerned that even putting this article in the userspace just means it will reappear sooner or later but still fail notability. Remember notability is not a reflection on the quality of the article but on the subject itself. Having been the founding member of the Private Equity Task Force, I am more than happy to help the author find other venture capital related topics that are in dire need of help that are far more notable for an enthusiastic hobbyist. I would look on it as a privelege to work with a new user but still I stand by my nomination to delete this article, now for the second time |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 04:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Whilst I am in total disagreement that the subject is not notable and believe him to meet WP:BIO I accept all constructive comments. I will continue with this and other pieces in this space of investment pioneers. More importantly, I am very encouraged by this debate - this process is so very important in legitmising all articles and it is comforting that such care and attention is spent with all entries. I hope I can make an important contribution too. I am looking forward to working with you Urbanrenewal on the Private Equity Task Force and would be delighted to accept any suggestions for where to devote some time on this important topic. MyraSendak (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Insufficient coverage to establish notability. The FT article is a brief mention, and done as a writing hook in the lead paragraph. The article in not about Heron or his company and quickly move on. The business week items are just directory entries. And rest are just mere mentions. There is no coverage of any significance. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and *Comment - I have exhausted this process now. The subject matter is notable and I will continue to add to it as I am able. When this thread started there were several question marks around it - was it promotional - was it an orphan article etc. These issues have been resolved. I think an unneccessary amount has been deleted - the bits that make the subject notable (calling him a pioneer and using some of his tips as references - this does not discuss him it discusses a specific subject matter) have been seen as an advert. Advertising what I dont know. I have deleted anyway.

I do not understand some people's focus on the Financial Times article. It is just one reference and in this case is mostly about Heron and his alternative investment concept. But it is the fact (and I sound like a broken record here) that he is pioneering these unusual alternative investments into a seperate asset class that I have focussed on. Those that have said the article hardly talks about Heron haven't read the article. But I have added other references now so there shouldn't be such a focus. There are thousands of media quotes which all relate to his career as a tipster though I have not focussed on these. I have deleted claims about his wealth (gleamed from Sunday Times Rich List, the 2006/2007 edition (http://www.amazon.com/Sunday-Times-Rich-Philip-Beresford/dp/0713672366/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1248907113&sr=8-1). I amended wealth down from £13m to £6.5m (I found a different claim in a magazine) and then deleted altogether as wealth in this case is irrelevant. My interest in investment pioneers and "celebrity" investor types is genuine and this seemed the obvious person to start with as all the other principle ones are somehow connected. Tom Winnifrith (presenter of Channel 4's Show Me the Money and editor of t1ps - heron used to be an editor within Winnifrith's organisation. He also owns a declarable stake (cant find exactly how much) in Rivington Street Holdings, the influential publisher). Duncan Bannatyne (one of the Dragons on BBC's Dragons Den, was a speaker at an event with Heron on more than one occasion - Master Investor). Conrad Windham (there is already a Wiki article about Windham which I have added to, but WIndham used to work for Heron at a tipsheet).

My interest is in a totally different area to those that are commenting about venture capital and private equity (I may have filed this article incorrectly) - I have joined the private equity task force.....I notice it is all about big wealth and big deals as opposed to those that are changing the landscape. My interest in Winnifrith, Scott Fletcher, Conrad Windham, Luke Heron, Simon Cawkwell, Peter Jones and others is how they have popularised investing in venture capital among mere mortals by leveraging their celebrity. Heron's move to make alternatives a legitimate asset class is a very interesting one and the wider alternatives market needs more substance on wiki. Again, another area I am interested in. MyraSendak (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2009 (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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luke_Heron_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1140103977"