Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John William Ward (manager)


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

John William Ward (manager)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can't see any grounds for notability here. Positions held to date are not considered inherently notable Flaming Ferrari (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete fails GNG BlueSalix (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Delete. Seems to be very marginal. No 3rd party refs; link to Wiki Debrett is meaningless.Viva-Verdi (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment He is listed in Who's Who (UK) (Subscription required) and Debrett's People of Today as "Development Advisor to Welsh National Opera since 2003", however I am still not convinced as to whether he is independently notable.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. He was general secretary of the First Division Association, an important British trade union. That alone qualifies him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - he's been judged to be notable by both Who's Who and Debrett's (which btw, isn't wiki/user-generated content). I say both of these are probably better at judging notability than Wikipedians per WP:OTHERENCYCLOPEDIAS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Who's Who and Debrett's list a lot of people who do not meet wikipedia notability criteria, such as this former AFD. It's wrong to assume that every QC, headteacher, and company director listed in these publications should also warrent inclusion here. --Flaming Ferrari (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment the previous article was quite scandalously wrongly deleted - there is previous precedence that headmasters of British public schools are inherently notable. Meanwhile, Who's Who/Debrett's are "establishment" publications, but that's good because we are supposed to be WP:MAINSTREAM and not just a list of all professional footballers.  As stated, these are professionals whose job it is to identify those in society who are of importance.  Some Wikipedians are cack-handed amateurs.  I think I know who's best to judge. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment looks like the article's was either copied to or from informationreach John, on the same site is a page listing FDA personnel, could be used as ref is article is kept, informationreach fda. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 06:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. It definitely looks as if the "delete" votes are factually confused.  Why are we going to tell Who's Who that we know better than they who the important, coverage-worthy people are?  They and Debrett's provide substantial coverage of important people; they are reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and their reputations are longstanding: Who's Who has published since the early Victoria era, and Debrett's has been established for more than a quarter-millennium.  They're not just taking random Joe Bloggs off the street: they're professionals who are picking leading members of society.  As noted at the other AFD, some factual stuff is submitted, but the problem with subject-submitted content is typically that it's published without review.  This is completely different, as the editors review submitted content and news to ensure that the biographies remain up-to-date and accurate.  See here; while content is partially autobiographical, it's independently researched in order to maintain reliability.  Again, why would we tell the editors of these publications, established reference works for several lives of men, that we know better than they who the notable people are?  Nyttend (talk) 15:57, 8 February 2014 (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.