Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kieran Goodwin


 * 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. --MelanieN (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Kieran Goodwin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. A teenager who has done some charity fundraising, along with others, and recieved minor media attention for it. Few of the independent sources cite discuss the subject of the article himself in any depth. The only significant coverage is a local online newspaper story about him being nominated for London Young Person of the Year - which he evidently didn't win. As far as I can tell, nominations are open to anyone to submit, making nominations of questionable note. . If the article isn't an autobiography, it has been written by someone closely associated with the subject. Wikipedia is not a platform for self-promotion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe the page has a huge significance. Over 80,000 people follow this chap on Twitter and search up information about him daily. He was a competitive swimmer who competed nationally and has opened his own charity at the age of just 16. He was amongst the youngest people to swim the English Channel at just 15. Kieran Goodwin is known throughout many countries throughout the world which makes this article important for people to find information regarding him on. Kieran Goodwin is also a blogger for the world renowned Huffington Post. I believe you have missed many details of Kieran Goodwin in your statement to deleting this page which I understand is very unfair. Dragonfly009 (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Congratulations, you have just won the Wikipedia bullshit of the day award. Wikipedia discussions regarding notability are based around evidence from published reliable sources, and not on unsupported claims of world renown coming from contributors who's entire editing history consists of promotion of this individual and related charity fund-raising teams. So he writes a blog for the (UK) Huff Post does he? So do lots of people - we don't however cite them as evidence of notability, which requires in-depth coverage in independent sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, it should be noted that the Channel swim was as part of a relay - something which the article failed to point out.  AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep. This article should be kept as it gives good factual information regarding the notable person. I believe deleting the page will only equal to people not finding the information they wish to see regarding this person. I think his work is notable. Support009 (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC) This account has been blocked as a sock of Dragonfly009. Mike V • Talk 01:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It should be noted that this is not a vote, and that new accounts who's sole edits are 'keep's for articles entirely unsupported by evidence are unlikely to be taken into consideration when closing. Instead, the matters under consideration are the evidence in independent published sources, and Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I think what you are doing is wrong, that's all. The article deserves to be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfly009 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, quite frankly exactly per nomination. Could you please take a look at User:DragonflySixtyseven/First-timer? It was written in response to another discussion but I feel it applies here. Best, --L235 (t / c /  ping in reply ) 23:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:TOOSOON Theroadislong (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete – seems to fail GNG right now. Might not in the future, but right now I don't think this subject is worthy of an article. T  C  N7 JM  09:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Although my article does not meet the WP:GNG I believe it has great potential for people who research him, and I can assure everyone on here that many people do look him up. In creating Kieran Goodwin I thought I would be helping many people gather all the information they require from him. I know of many people who have searched him up and found the references and information extremely useful. Dragonfly009 (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Your assurance is neither necessary, nor apparently correct - the page view statistics are available for all to see. And given that you have agreed that the subject does not meet Wikipedia policy requirements regarding notability, there is no point whatsoever in calling for the article to be kept. It isn't going to happen. And please stop pretending you aren't Goodwin - you have already self-identified by posting your personal email details while using another of your multiple accounts.... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you know 'AndyTheGrump' you come across as a nasty old man. I will delete the page now as to avoid this unnecessary argument and discussion. I really hope you live your life in sorrow. I am not 'Goodwin' for goodness sake and you should really get a life off of Wikipedia. Dragonfly009 (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And you come across as an egotistical brat, Kieran - but neither is relevant to this discussion. Which will continue, since you are not in the position to personally delete the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Guys, guys. Come on. Is this really necessary? T  C  N7 JM  20:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably not. But neither is relentless self-promotion, sockpuppetry and repetitive bullshit. The kid does good work for charity, along with his friends, and they should be commended for it. It doesn't however entitle him to mislead our readers with over-inflated claims about his own personal merits. He can (and does) use Facebook and Twitter for that, but this is an encyclopaedia, and our readers expect objectivity, not misleading promotional fluff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 4 March 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.