Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Craig (businessman)


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (given that all but one Keep vote came from a sock farm, see Sockpuppet investigations/JoinFluffy250) Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Kevin Craig (businessman)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:BLP of a businessman and politician, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for businessmen or politicians. As always, neither businessmen nor politicians are "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on substantive coverage and analysis about their work -- but the attempted notability claim as a businessman is that his company exists, cited entirely to primary sources such as press releases self-published by his own company and Q&A interviews in which he's the speaker and not the subject under discussion; the attempted notability claim as a politician is that he's served on a borough council, which is not a level of office that guarantees inclusion under WP:NPOL, and is still referenced to a primary source "staff" profile rather than GNG-building media coverage about his work on the council; and what's left for GNG-worthy coverage is two pieces that are covering him in trivial human interest contexts entirely tangential to the attempted notability claims, which thus aren't enough coverage to vault him over GNG all by themselves if "man is proud to be Irish" and "man is Olympic torchbearer" are the only fully independent third party sourcing he has. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians,  and England. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
 * :Keep. I would like to address some factual inaccuracies that appear to have contributed to the nominator’s rationale behind submitting this for deletion.
 * Firstly, no primary sources are used in this article. There are no “self published articles by the subject’s company”. As per WP:GNG, only secondary and reputable sources are used (London Evening Standard, The Irish Times etc).
 * Secondly, there are no ‘staff profiles’ used in the references. I am unsure what the nominator is referring to here. Both the Irish Times and Evening Standard pieces are full features on the subject and in reputable publications and as such meet WP:GNG. PoliticsDex (talk) 13:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The Irish Times article is just an ongoing business feature on Irish people working abroad. It doesn't really lend itself to notability. The LES article is just about how he carried the Olympic torch for a little ways. SportingFlyer  T · C  13:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s correct. Both would meet WP:GNG as both are WP:SIGCOV and also WP:SUSTAINED. I see no reason why this shouldn’t be kept. PoliticsDex (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Then everyone who got written about in a weekly feature by the Times would be one small piece of SIGCOV away from a Wikipedia article. That column is clearly not discriminate when it comes to notability. SportingFlyer  T · C  15:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We'll likely need to agree to disagree, but the article is in a publication that fully meets Wikipedia:GNG source criteria in that it is reliable, independent, secondary, published and significant. Our job is not to discuss what makes the editorial cut at the Irish Times, but to determine whether it meets guidelines as per Wikipedia policy - which it does. PoliticsDex (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, you're wrong that no primary sources are used in the article: Local Government Chronicle is a primary source, as it is just a directory of his own writing for that publication — but we're not looking for sources in which he's the author of content about other things, we're looking for sources in which he's the subject of content written by other people. University of Southampton is a primary source, as it's just an institution self-publishing a calendar listing of an event it's hosting and not third-party coverage establishing said event as newsworthy. Stuff published by his own company isn't the only thing that counts as primary sourcing — stuff self-published by any entity directly affiliated with the claim it's sourcing is primary sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I was responding to the specific point you made where you said references were “press releases self-published by his own company”. Clearly, this isn’t the case. I agree that better references than the LGC and University of Southampton ones are required. PoliticsDex (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per Bearcat, who always makes the argument better than I can - after looking at the sources, the article fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  10:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.Expressive101 (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, but it's borderline. Looks like changes have been made to original article that was nominated - broadly falls in line with WP:GNG ButtonPocketSquare899 (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like to hear more from those editors advocating Keep to counter objections from editors seeking Deletion. A simple "Keep" is insufficient in a deletion discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep.  Brachy 08  (Talk) 23:22, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Could do with expanding, but references seem to meet policy thresholds.JoinFluffy250 (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete per Bearcat. I don't see sufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG. --Enos733 (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Keep  in relation to request to expand upon original answer. As per PoliticsDex. The Irish Times and Evening Standard articles are reputable, independent and verifiable sources. So is PR Week. Those alone mean this meetsWP:GNG. Agree with others who have said it needs expanding, however there is no policy-driven reason here for it to be deleted --JoinFluffy250 (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * JoinFluffy250, you can only "vote" once so I have struck your duplicate vote. Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Final relist. I can't help but notice that most of the editors advocating Keep have low edit counts reflecting a lack of AFD experience. So, I'm doing one final relisting. A reminder that while editors can make multiple comments in a deletion discussion, you can only "vote" once. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep appears to meet WP:GNG by way of being published in multiple secondary sources that are reliable and independent of one another and the subject. I count at least three - a couple of others more disputable. Nonetheless, it ticks enough boxes to be kept. --Pocketsquare123 (talk) 16:51, 02 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: The first source is fine, the rest are him talking to media or being interviewed. The PR Times requires registration, so I didn't read it. It appears to be in a trade magazine, which I'd assume isn't a RS, but sourcebot has it green... Regardless, carrying the Olympic flame isn't notable, rest of the sourcing is interviews or typical "ask the expert about xyz" that news programs use. I can't see that he's regarded as the go-to expert in his field, just appears to be a person doing their job for a long time and is able to explain it to others. Oaktree b (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not appear to have enough SIGVOV to meet GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: The sources provided in this article do not provide much notability. Also, in order to appear in media, one must have a clear and present appearance in the network, not merely a mention from user-generated content. HarukaAmaranth 春香 20:53, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.