Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dylan Thwaites

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. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Thwaites

Lack of notability. Has won an award, but that's not enough to write more than a very short stub. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article was created by the same editor who created a corporate advertising article. It looks like something done to advertise rather than to improve the encyclopedia. The national award is an assertion of notability, which is the only reason I didn't speedy this. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. There are several indepednant secondary sources both reporting on him winning the award and profiling him in general [1], [2], [3]. The article may have been created as an advirtisment but there is no reason why additional sources (including the ones above) cannot be found and used to create a good encylopaedic entry. [[Guest9999 18:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Well then, please do. The third source is just a quote in passing, and it doesn't look like the first two have enough encyclopedic content to produce more than a stub. This article has been tagged for a long time and nobody bothered with it. I suggest those wishing to keep should put effort into fixing it. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:ONLYCREATEDFOR and WP:NOEFFORT are not good justifications for deletion. There is no deadline for editing and improving an article on Wikipedia. The fact that there is evidence that this article could become a sourced, encyclopaedic article should be enough. [[Guest9999 18:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Just to be clear, there isn't enough encyclopedic material available from independent sources to write more than a stub. That by itself is a valid reason for deletion. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is at least enough information for a stub (and information in the form of coverage by multiple relaible, independant secondary sources) with the possibility of more information being found to add to and expand the article in the future. A well sourced stub can still be valuble - policy meeting, article. I'm also slightly confused by your last edit summary.[[Guest9999 21:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Have a look at WP:BIO and explain how the criteria are satisfied. The three news appearances you suggest do not offer in depth coverage. The fact that a fellow starts a business and gets one article in a local newspaper, and a couple other mentions is is not necessarily enough to justify a Wikipedia article. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the links was an in depth profile by the Financial Times, hardly a local newspaper. Also the buisness he started is now the largest British owned search engine. He is also mentioned in this article in the Telegraph [4], this Deloitte article is also mentions him [5]. Also looking at WP:BIO "Once notability is established, primary sources may be used to add content." - these could be used to 'flesh out' the article a bit. [[Guest9999 21:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Comment Really though what I think at this point, is that the company (Latitude) almost certainly meets the notability criteria as it seems to have been covered by several major newspapers and at least two of the big four financial services firm. This article could then be merged in if it was felt neccessary. [[Guest9999]] —Preceding comment was added at 21:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As a possible rival in the same industry, Jehochman may not be the ideal nominator for this deletion.88.191.12.180 04:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC) - — 88.191.12.180 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That comment assumed bad faith. I am hardly a rival because I don't serve clients in the UK. For a long time I've been guarding the internet marketing pages against repeated spamming. If Latitude meets the notability criteria, please generate a list of references and we can discuss it. I just deleted Latitude White as spam because there was no assertion of notability per corporate notability policy. If you wish to appeal, please file a request at deletion review. - Jehochman ^Talk 05:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no notability asserted, not a single source cited. Probably a good candidate for CSD A7 and G11. - Crockspot 06:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst no sources are cited in the article, several have been found during the debate including sources from major notional newspapers [6], [7] as well as the big four financial services firms [8]. There is definately information out there. [[Guest9999 11:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Delete as a vainity page. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 09:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've gone through and added some refs I could find, seems to be over the threshold of WP:BIO, also for transparency I know nothing about this subject (I came here after seeing the noticeboard posting of Jehochman) so if someone would like to make sure those aren't totally unreliable sources for me, though they appear to be WP:RS. Dureo 11:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dureo, have a look at the four sources now present. Ask yourself whether that information was vetted and checked by an independent party, or whether it was just submitted by the subject and then republished. Primary sources can be used to fill out non-controversial details, but they can't be used to establish notability. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see this as establishing encyclopaedic notability. There does seem to be a bit of a push to boost the firm, which doesn't hepl the article's case. Guy (Help!) 12:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, as article is now sourced and WP:V VivioFa teFan ^{(Talk, Sandbox)} 12:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even CLOSE to encyclopedic worthiness, a small-time operator of minimal achievements: and that's not even touching the reliable-source problems. --Calton | Talk 12:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't appear to meet our notability qualifications at this time. • Lawrence Cohen 14:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. Person has not been the subject of coverage by third-party published sources with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. -- Satori Son 15:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply WThere are several sources from major newspapers including the Financial Times and The Daily Telegraph [9]] accuracy.[10]- these are reputable newspapers which do have a reputation for fact checking and . [[-- Guest9999 (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Delete. Not enough sources, subject doesn't seem notable. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply How many sources are neccessary for notability, several sources have been found - all WP:NN says on the subject is that "Multiple sources are generally preferred". Multiple sources have been found (and are linked above) including reports of the subject winning awards (as mentioned in WP:BIO) and profiles by major newspapers. [[-- Guest9999 (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

Delete not even close; we don't even know when or where he was born red flags of non-notability in modern biographies. Carlossuarez46 16:17, 16 November 2007 (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.