Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Grigg


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Go   Phightins  !  03:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Chris Grigg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:ANYBIO references are merely short bio listings based on his job. Not editorial discussion. MJH (talk) 04:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note for an Admin: WP:WITHDRAWN based on the addition of references supporting notability---MJH (talk) 16:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.  People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not."
 * Delete Not notable PianoDan (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Not notable?  The chief executive of one of the largest property companies in the United Kingdom?  The WP:ANYBIO guideline, quoted by MJH, does not rule out this entry.  It comes under the section Additional criteria, which specifically notes A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability.  The Basic criteria are that:
 * In this particular case, the subject has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject, and these are cited. Clearly, the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph, both major British national newspapers, considered Grigg notable enough to interview him about his life, position and beliefs, as did City A.M., a trade newspaper with a certified distribution of over 130,000 copies.  Skinsmoke (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Sounds promising. Do you have references for those interviews? Perhaps you could add them to the article.--MJH (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just noticed that the original author has done just that since AfD nomination. My evil plan is working!--MJH (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've just left some thoughts on your talk page. In summary, a notability tag might have been the better way to go here! Edwardx (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Skinsmoke sets out the arguments very well. But to be fair to MJH, I added those three sources AFTER he started the AfD. Nonetheless, a quick internet search would have shown plenty of quality sources, so a simple notability tag should achieve the desired outcome in these sort of cases. Edwardx (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and speedy close per Skinsmoke and EdwardX, whose sound analyses demonstrate yjat the nominator failed to perform even cursory checks on the subject's actual notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep As well as the solid Telegraph interview that is now in place as a reference, the subject can be found figuring in the news with his considerable benefit package increase being questioned: . And another point: AfD is not intended as a vehicle for inducing article improvement. AllyD (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 14 December 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.