Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Snelgrove

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 redirect to Timothy's World Coffee. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 06:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Snelgrove

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

Questionable notability, contested prod. Founder of a coffee company that has expanded since his having left it. PK T(alk) 22:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Comment. I met Tim a few times in the 1980s and based on what his company was like when he left it, I question whether he meets the bar for notability. I'm ambivalent about whether or not the article is kept, but if it is kept I hope it improves.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —PK T(alk) 22:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Founder of a notable company, and documented as such in reliable sources like the Toronto Star and Financial Post. -- Whpq (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm. COI is ad hominem, and instruction WP:CREEP / FORK (what I call a Clone) of the POV and RS rules. However, if as is likely, you do not agree, you should keep this article immediately, as it is clear the nominator has a conflict of interest with the subject. Anarchangel (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a COI issue with the subject. I put forward this AfD to determine whether or not the community could come to a consensus one way or the other regarding his notability. I have found very little in the way of reliable sources about him - not much more than passing mentions on sites like this one as opposed to, say, a known business journal or significant newspaper. PK T(alk) 13:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The founder of a company doesn't necessarily need his own separate article — especially if it doesn't have any reliable sources in it. The company didn't become notable until after he sold it, for instance, so there's hardly a compelling claim to be made that he inherits notability from a company whose notability has precious little to do with him in the first place — and even the woman who bought it from him, and expanded it to the point that it could credibly belong in an encyclopedia, doesn't have her own article. So, as written, this is just an unreferenced BLP about a historical footnote, and Timothy's World Coffee already contains what little information we need about him anyway. And, for that matter, I'm saying all this as someone who regularly frequents a Timothy's franchise — so I can hardly be accused of conflating notability with whether I've heard of the topic or not. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 03:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boredly redirect to Timothy's World Coffee. Clearly not notable enough for his own own article, but the company is, and it's feasible that someone, one day, might use this fella as a search term. It's a fairly routine case for a redirect. Not very thrilling, but fits our policies so there we go. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Timothy's World Coffee. Founding a company does not confer automatic notability. Not notable in own right. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Whpq. Article needs improvement and sourcing but the fellow is certainly notable enough to have an article. - Pictureprovince (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2011 (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.