Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Harris-Quinney


 * 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 Bow Group.  MBisanz  talk 00:25, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Ben Harris-Quinney

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:Bio. Being chairman of a Conservative think tank and publishing a few papers does not make him notable. Tiller54 (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment What about Notability (academics) @SmithAndTeam (talk) 01:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Does not meet criteria. Putting on an exhibition for Churchill, writing 2 articles for websites and being part of a think tank that publishes an article of ideas for the Conservative Party does not meet the criteria for WP:ACADEMIC. Tiller54 (talk) 01:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete for failing WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets criteria for WP:AUTHOR WP:BK and WP:ACADEMIC, see Phillip Blond, Tim Montgomerie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.226.55.207 (talk • contribs)
 * Hello 77.226.55.207 - I believe you mean "Keep" but wrote "Comment" following the lead of the previous poster. So I went ahead and changed your probable intended position accordingly, feel free to change back if this was not your intention. -- Green Cardamom (talk)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 6:50 pm, Today (UTC−4)


 * Keep He is chair of Bow Group, the oldest Conservative think tank in the UK. It's current President is Prime Minister Sir John Major, so it's a venerable elite institution among British conservatives. According to WP:ACADEMIC #5: "The person holds or has held a named chair appointment or Distinguished Professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research" -- I'm reading "and research" as a proxy for think tank. We don't have WP:THINKTANK but if we did surely it would mirror WP:ACADEMIC in this regard, since schools and think tanks both engage in research and publishing papers. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 03:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks the body of research that would befit the 'named chair' analogue. Working for a think tank does not an academic make. EardleyC (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Being the Chairman or Director of a notable think tank, which the entry is, is very different from just working for a think tank.


 * Keep For those with intimate knowledge of UK Politics the Bow Group's body of research is vast and directly influences the Conservative Party and therefore Government of the United Kingdom, the Chairman of the institution publishes and has a hand in authoring or editing every document and article produced, in addition to WP:ACADEMIC there is strong cause to say the role is in effect also one of a political figure WP:POLITICIAN User:Bluese7en


 * Delete - Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:AUTHOR and especially not WP:POLITICIAN. Should re-direct to Bow Group. Dcfc1988 (talk) 01:50, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Presents cause for WP:THINKTANK entry under which entry would certainly qualify. Otherwise it falls somewhere between WP:ACADEMIC or WP:POLITICIAN. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.214.60 (talk • contribs)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)




 * delete Being chairman of the Bow Group doesn't seem to be that much of a distinction; it appears to be a rotating post which gets passed along every year, and the list given in our article is full of red links. Outside of that he seems to have no real footprint other than the blogosphere; indeed I'm not sure that those references aren't all from the Bow Group itself. Mangoe (talk) 18:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Notability is not inherited.  The Bow Group is notable, but this individual has no coverage outside of his capacity as their chairman.  For similar reasons, and from a different side of the political aisle, Olaf Cramme was redirected via AFD to Policy Network, where he serves as director. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Ranjodhpur (talk) 03:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Entry has clearly written and made contributions outside of his role as director of a think tank, and there is no reason why the article should not qualify even if he had not. The Bow Group is a major UK think tabk and the role has cinsiderable influence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.233.44 (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject per WP:GNG. Some coverage is in: Evening Standard November 9, 2011, Telegraph May 24, 2012, Mail July 8, 2012. The Wikipedia article appears to be written by looking at Harris-Quinney's resume and reporting in Wikipedia what Harris-Quinney has done per his resume. Between Harris-Quinney's life events and Wikipedia, there needs to be independent reliable third-party sources covering Harris-Quinney's life events. Without those, there's no direction on what to add to the Wikipedia article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Ben Harris-Quinney was on BBC news today discussing prison reform in the UK, why would the entry be removed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JEQ7 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment "He was on the BBC News channel" doesn't fulfil notability requirements... unless you're Guy Goma. Dcfc1988 (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment 5 of the 7 votes to keep come from newly-created accounts who have never contributed before or unregistered users who have also never contributed to wikipedia before ... I wonder if any of them know Mr. Harris-Quinney or work for the Bow Group... Tiller54 (talk) 15:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment It may be worth noting that Tiller54 initiated the request to delete the entry and yet vandalises it 3 or 4 times a day in removing valid citations and information. Upon review of this discussion and the entry's edit history it is clear that the user Tiller54 is operating with a motivated bias to remove / vandalise the entry in question. (I am re-adding this comment after the deadline as it was removed by Tiller54 but was originally posted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.214.49 (talk) 04:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.214.143 (talk)
 * Keep: Topic is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.