Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Allcott


 * 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. Despite the efforts to save the article, the consensus here is in line with BusterD's evaluation: that the coverage in these sources lack the independence to be sufficiently reliable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  19:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Graham Allcott

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Unremarkable "social entrepreneur". Fails WP:GNG and serious sourcing issues. Appears to be edited mainly by "single purpose accounts" related to charities connected to the subject. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * 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) 01:35, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete. Most of the websites cited as references are just websites.  Anything that could be used as reliable sources, even remotely, only have a handful of quotes from him, or in one case, is a commentative piece he wrote for the Guardian.  The references provided do not support notability. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 06:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | squeal _ 14:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Keep. References seem to have been updated recently, mostly to reliable third party sites. Considering his billing alongside Boris Johnson in the Guardian (and mentions in a number of other Guardian stories), as well as articles in the Times and on the BBC he seems well-respected in his field. References show that he is an award winning charity exec and social entrepreneur so I would say that he is notable, it's just that the page was badly referenced initially. London456 (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have made updates to show notability, previous editors had not reffed correctly and were just websites as Dennis notes above. There is now a good body of third party evidence for notability in my opinion. Freespeach1 (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: - The closing admin should be aware that London456's first ever edit was to this AfD. Freespeach1 had made a total of 16 edits prior to their vote in this AfD, of which 4 were made to InterVol, a related charity. See my earlier remark about the article having been maintained by SPA accounts. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. So I'm a new user..? So what. The article clearly passes WP:GNG #1 as the author is featured as the lead contributor and interviewee in the references provided, as I noted above his opinions are framed by both the BBC and the Guardian to counter those of Gordon Brown and Boris Johnson so he is clearly a well-respected figure in youth volunteering. London456 (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am involved in the overseas charity sector in the UK so this is a particular interest area of mine, I have no connection to either this page or InterVol. I may not be the most active user but am not an 'SPA'. Going back to the article itself, have you (DC) reviewed the referencing updates and what is your opinion on that? Freespeach1 (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per GNG and WP:BASIC. While it is true the subject has written in reliable sources and has occasionally been questioned by such sources, I see nothing in the updated sources which meets the WP:IRS standard for coverage. The award listed is given by an organization which promotes careers in entrepreneurship, so I believe it lacks independence as promotional. Routine entrepreneurial business promotion links the vast majority of the sourcing, even those links from otherwise RS. Nominator makes an important point which the comments above emphasize: virtually every account or ip associated with this page by multiple edits is either connected by edits to the organizations, or is a single purpose account. Only one or two multi-edit contributors have ANY edits outside this page or the organizations. Since the pagespace itself is fluffy, the sourcing bare, and the press interest in this subject remote, I've concluded this article is a promotional effort. BusterD (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Old AfD, so I'll weigh in.  Sources don't meet GNG, but number of sources makes clear that all we have is all there really is.  Wikipedia is not linkedin, people think it is from time to time, we're not saying Mr. Allcott is not a worthy person intrinsically.--Milowent • hasspoken  13:50, 24 May 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.