Jump to content

Project:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Tedi Tičić

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The outcome of this request for deletion was to File:Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. At ease some article references are not what I consider a reliable source: they are self-published/press-release style (no editorial oversight), or they are interviews (doesn't establish any notability). Article tone is very promotional, too. In short, we are better off deleting this one--Eptalon (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Tedi Tičić[change]

Tedi Tičić (edit · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete) · close request

Vermont has nominated this page for deletion for the reason: Not notable. Existing sources are incredibly promotional and almost certainly paid for. No indication of coverage in independent reliable sources.

Noting: was QD'd by Gotanda, article creator left a message on the talk page and a wait tag, so I'm bringing it to a discussion. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 04:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Please discuss this request below, but keep in mind that you shouldn't vote on everything and that there may be options other than "keep" or "delete", such as merging.

Discussion[change]

  • File:Symbol keep vote.svg Keep some sources do seem to be written a bit advertorial, but i feel that a tag for more sources is a better option here. A google search brings up a large amount of relatively good sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tester85 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
    Strange that an account was created on December 26, 2023 with suspicious modifications to drown out the fish, come and vote here. It's also strange that the creator of the article (who, according to the logs, created this article first on November 26, 2023) came to correct this comment. Especially since the subject of the article was already debunked two years ago here Tedi Ticic, Crypto Trader, Author & Fake Paid Articles 78.242.176.71 (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I think in the cryptocurrency space it's often that people are over positive, so this somewhat "promotional" tone I suppose kind of makes sense. That's why when creating the article, I used NPOV. Dotdashmeredith (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
The IBT article is clearly paid for, and is not the actual International Business Times (which itself is unreliable per enwiki en:WP:RSP discussion). The Entrepreneur link is a self-written author page. The Forbes article is written by a contributor (so, no editorial oversight, also probably paid for) and is showing for me as "no longer active"...probably for good reason. The Gotham Magazine article is certainly paid for and is hilariously poorly written and promotional.
People who want to boost their online presence pay people to get these types of sites to write over-the-top, gushing profiles about how amazing they are. And basically every article on these sites is the same type of puff piece.
After reviewing UPE content a lot, it gets easy to spot when someone has actual independent coverage, and when they just put a bunch of money into a spammy SEO firm. This is the latter. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 02:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
this article is interesting https://www.letmeexpose.is/tedi-ticic-crypto/ Flowbird77300 (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Re: this being a feature of the cryptocurrency space...yes. Web3/crypto people and companies are a big customer of SEO firms and paid articles. This person being involved in cryptocurrency does not negate the fact that there is not a single independent, secondary reliable source about the subject. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 02:48, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. How about Tech Buillon, Tech Times, Bangkok Post (which is a newspsper of record) and The Ritz Herald?
I think maybe some of the articles are paid for while others aren't. Some of these sources are very reputable and I doubt they would let that occur. I feel like the article should be kept but made as objective as possible. dotdashmeredith (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
The idea that any actual reporter spontaneously decided to write this...

"In conclusion, Tedi Ticic’s journey from mentor to cryptocurrency expert has solidified his position as a leading figure in both the finance and personal development realms. With his unwavering determination, extensive knowledge, and passion for empowering others, Ticic continues to inspire individuals worldwide to pursue their dreams, achieve work-life balance, and unlock their financial potential. Whether you are interested in cryptocurrency trading or seeking guidance in personal growth, Tedi Ticic is the mentor to turn to for a unique perspective on wealth creation." - techbuillon article

...without being paid for it, is basically inconceivable. This author ("Adil Husnain") has such interesting reportage as "Discover Free Tarot Reading" (an ad for a tarot app) and "Hardwood Floor Refinishing in Wichita, KS" (an ad for a local flooring company). These are paid articles organized by SEO firms.
The Bangkok Post article, though it is a legit news site, is noted as a paid article. It's in the "PR News" section, and there's not even an author listed.
And most of these articles are...really oddly similar. They start out about how he's a "pioneer", then discuss his childhood and "gifted intellect" and "humble background", then his "path to success" and eventually his advice for other cryptocurrency traders. There is not a single secondary, independent, reliable source which has covered this person. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 04:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
File:Symbol comment vote.svg Comment: Ah, thank you for that Vermont. I feel like being a journalist for Entrepreneur (magazine) may still be applicable though, to notability. Maybe we should remove the information relating to cryptocurrency ventures and just keep it as a "journalist"? I think that would be the best move here. dotdashmeredith (talk) 01:45, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
The point remains that there is not a single secondary, independent, reliable source which has covered this person. There is nothing with which to warrant or facilitate the creation of an article. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 19:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
  1. The Forbes source appears to have been taken down [1]. That's fine, we can still see what it looked like on October 31st using the wayback machine: [2]. This is a contributor piece that is likely paid for. The article doesn't really cover the subject in depth. It appears to only exist to promote the subject (paragraphs 1-5)
  2. The Bangkok Post source is a press release. Similar issue to #1.
  3. The Daily Scanner is a suspicious online publication with no clear editorial oversight. The source comes across as a laudatory piece of the subject.
  4. Author profile pages cannot be used to establish notability, as they are likely self-written.
  5. Again, reads like a promotional piece. The absence of a clear author ("IBT Desk") suggests this is also a PR.
  6. Is an interview, which can't be used to establish notability.

Elsewhere I fail to find good sources for the subject that pass GNG.— *Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page 12:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

This request is due to close on 04:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC), seven days after it was filed, although it may be closed earlier at the discretion of an administrator.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not change it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No more changes should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.nynox.solutions/index.php?title=Project:Requests_for_deletion/Requests/2023/Tedi_Tičić&oldid=465091"