Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Spence (entrepreneur) (2nd nomination)

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 keep‎. While the !votes since the relist don't do much to provide further analysis of the sources, the absence of any rebuttal in favor of deletion since the expansion of the article with additional sources two weeks ago makes the outcome clear. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Spence (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails the general and biography-specific notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. UtherSRG (talk) 15:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The person has sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources, including print media such as magazines and books, to meet the GNG criteria. Additionally, some non-routine awards also contribute to the subject's general notability --Moem-Meom (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sources 6 and 19 are the only ones that are green per sourcetool. His company investing money and a profile in Indian media aren't really what notability is here... Rest don't appear to help much either. I can't find mentions of this person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I've expanded the page with reliable and independent not-routine (focused on the subject of that page) sources and now the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. Besides good coverage in such respected publications like Business News (Australia), Fortune India, Entrepreneur (magazine), The Economic Times and some Indonesia tourism/leisure magazines, I added 4 sources with significant coverage of the person from The West Australian - I accessed them via Google cache so no "paywall" issues anymore. These sources are from 2010, 2012, 2015, and 2023, showing a clear sign of a reliable media interest over a long period, as required by Wikipedia. And I added 1 piece from City A.M., a nice detailed storytelling on he subject. Briefly speaking, the coverage in The West Australian and City A.M. alone is sufficient to pass the problem with reliable sources, as I found 5 new sources with in-depth coverage. Of course, without reaching that content, the page appears under-referenced; however, coverage in magazines and other media, including Yale University, are almost enough. Old-AgedKid (talk) 12:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: the page, which now includes multiple new reliable sources added after the AfD began, clearly meets the criteria of WP:Basic. 多少 战场 龙 (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

• Keep per good deep press (third-party) coverage in Australian and some other print&online media. Thus it meets ANYBIO or general notability requirements. --FightBrightTigh (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific analysis of newly added sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment noticed and read new additions from The West Australian newspaper focused entirely on the person. It should be enough to keep it. Moem-Meom (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Addition of new sources help clearly support this for WP:GNG. TLA (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as newly added sources prove WP:NEXIST as there were already reliable sources but not in the article. Also easily meets WP:Basic and GNG. 185.104.138.35 (talk) 04:46, 16 January 2024 (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.