Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey D. Lloyd


 * 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 merge to Llanelli Star. Selective merge into his newspaper. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 01:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Geoffrey D. Lloyd

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Has been tagged for notability for over 7 years; hopefully, we can now resolve this. Sending WP:APPNOTE to. Boleyn (talk) 15:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    16:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    16:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, additional results at :(. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , which of those results actually relate to this Geoff Lloyd? BencherliteTalk 12:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, a proper search for additional sources reveals no significant coverage in reliable sources to show that this gentleman meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. BencherliteTalk 12:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Lloyd was the President of the Guild of British Newspaper Editors. Per cite:
 * Hope this information is helpful, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep only if this is notable and acceptable. SwisterTwister   talk  04:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. All articles should be kept 'only if this is notable and acceptable.' But is this person WP:NOTABLE, and what convinces you? Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I know the article may not seem like much but any other better sources may not be online so this makes consider keeping, . SwisterTwister   talk  20:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I know the article may not seem like much but any other better sources may not be online so this makes consider keeping, . SwisterTwister   talk  20:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The article upon which Cirt relies is one headline and two sentences. It only says this: "Editors' guild president dies. The president of the Guild of British Newspapers, Mr Geoffrey Lloyd, has died. Mr Lloyd, 53, had been suffering from cancer." That's it.  That's not significant coverage by any stretch of the imagination.  BencherliteTalk 13:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:06, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think it's been established that being president of this guild means probable notability and current sourcing found isn't good enough. The guild merged to form the "Society of Editors" in 1999 if it's talking about the correct one. Current president doesn't have an article, there's an entry for his name but I don't think it's him. The "Immediate Past President" doesn't have one either. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge selectively & redirect to Llanelli Star. Obvious solution since we have an article on his newspaper, minor though it is.  DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge selectively & redirect to Llanelli Star. My serrches on the Proquest archive brought up little, beyond coverage in the paper he edited. Nor, for example an obit in any paper except the Star, that I could find.  DGG's soluiton here is a good one.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Selective Merge to Llanelli Star. North America1000 21:01, 10 November 2015 (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.