Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Waller (entrepreneur)


 * 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. Not really sure why this was relisted but anyway no one's objected to the sources provided and it does look to meet GNG so closing as Keep (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 18:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Jamie Waller (entrepreneur)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable; head of two small companies, and non notable TV presenter. Most of the articles mention him only in passing  DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not really invested one way or the other but Waller is also apparently the star of a BBC1 series, Beat The Bailiff. Not sure how much more notable that makes him, but... Quis separabit?  13:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTWHOSWHO Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  13:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  /wiae   /tlk  13:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * the show appears to have run a few episodes only, and others had principal roles in most of them.  DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTWHOSWHO and GNG/ Tpdwkouaa (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Jamie Waller is a small but significant businessman in the UK, he is only CEO of two company, but those two companys have an important and significant income, this can be seen in the references of the article, beside this, I dont think that an article about a businessman should be eliminated just because the businessman is "small", that doesnt sound like an argument about notability or significancy, in fact, it just sounds like you dont want this article to be here and that is all. This man has had a significant press cover up, he has been nominated for several important awards in his country, and he has had quite a tv appearance, all this make him significant enough to be in the enciclopedia. Im sure the article can be improved, almost every article in Wikipedia can be improved by some way or another, but eliminating it just because "he is a small businessman" just sounds like harrasment to me.Wizardlis54 (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Ive created this article several weeks ago, it was already reviews and updated by other users, I dont see why the deletion discussion should be made after all that.


 * Keep According to me the person has some good reference like http://bbc.co.uk interviews and articles etc.. So according to me it should be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by Satya satapathy (talk • contribs) 15:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Underneath the overwhelming promotionalism, most of which I have now removed, there is an article about a notable individual who has respectably in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Oddly the article did not mention any criticism of Waller's company until I added it. Thparkth (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and Draft at best if needed because this article still suggests whether he's solidly independently notable, nothing else currently convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  22:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note the sources I have listed below. North America1000 10:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep – The subject actually quite comfortably passes WP:BASIC. Source examples include, but are not limited to:, , , , , , , , . It's important to note that per WP:NEXIST, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article". North America1000 10:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, a lot of the references in the article are not great, but the ones that User:Northamerica1000 links to above are good enough to push this past the GNG. Doesn't mean that the article does not require improvement, however.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:02, 27 March 2016 (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.