Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Cobley


 * 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. I find DGG's analysis of the sources convincing. GNG requires in-depth independent coverage, and if the sources do not meet the criteria, GNG is not passed. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Dan Cobley

 * – ( View AfD View log )

With reference to WP:NOTCV. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: This article meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC as per the WP:RS in the article. This nomination lacks WP:BEFORE or lacks the understanding of AfD. The reasoning is also WP:JUSTAPOLICY. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 16:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be notable, according to The Times he was the Managing Director of Google in the UK https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/lunch-queues-the-new-hi-tech-hothouses-at-google-8ccq735pbj8 also I get 300+ hits on ProQuest (Wikipedia Library) when I search for his name Piecesofuk (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:GNG, enough coverage is available like the above The Times article. INeedToFlyForever (talk) 12:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ping: Sending ping for fetching unbiased assessments from experts - . Thanks in advance. -Hatchens (talk) 03:12, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete . Refs 1,  5,  6,7   are notices or mentions, 2, 3, 9 he wrote himself.  8 is PR. I can't see 4, but I doubt it's substantially about him. We should stop counting references, and actually read them.  And we should take a careful look at articles on his companies--Clearscore is advertising. I have a rough rule of thumb: if the first sentence, in addition to whatever the person actually is, which  in this case is a businessperson,  claims "investor" or "entrepreneur", it's puffery, because all businesspeople at a high enough level to even be considered for an article do those things--they're not exact synonyms, but they're close. . If in addition to what the person actually is in any field at all, it adds  "speaker",   the article is invariable promotional puffery. The only question is whether the person is so important as to be worth rewriting the article from scratch. I wish we had decent articles on important people in business, because knowing about them is important and sometimes even interesting, but unless they become famous, there is rarely a true substantial 3rd party reliable published source, not press release or blog or promotional interviews or mere notices. The problem is that PR has replaced journalism.   Unless we change our mission to a convenient place to collect PR, instead of to write encyclopedia articles, I do not see how we can do much about it. The deWP seems to do better, possibly because the PR people there are at a higher level, or they take business more seriously.  DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , to separate the chaf (PR articles) from the wheat (journalistic ones). We need to revamp the WP:RSP list. In its current state, many of us (new reviewers) are bound to get confused. - Hatchens (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We do need to improve the RSP list, but this might be a major and contentious undertaking. We also need better awareness that sometimes there might be no fully reliable source, at least in the willingness to publish promotionalism  DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: Blatant CV pushing. I concur with DGG's evaluation of the references et alia. Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 21:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete The coverage of this person is in sources that do not fit our use of the term reliable and so do not lead to passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2021 (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.