Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Lovegrove


 * 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 speedy delete. by JzG per G5 as Earflaps was blocked as a sock SmartSE (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Nick Lovegrove

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The sources that provide the best secondary coverage of the subject are two recently published book reviews in Kirkus and Publishers Weekly:. Those aren't enough to satisfy WP:NAUTHOR. Next best is this article in the Independent and this in PR week, but they are still some way short of the substantial, in-depth coverage required to meet WP:BIO. The other sources are either extremely brief mentions or primary sources, so it appears that the subject is not notable. SmartSE (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 21:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Page creator here: I encourage Smartse to edit what he sees fit and nominate what he sees fit, but I would like to point out that he and I were recently engaged in dispute on Daniel Amen today, and within the last several hours he has made significant edits to many of my recent edits, in an obvious case of wikihounding. I have no problem with this discussion taking place, but I will have a problem with SmartSE's behavior continuing unabated. Earflaps (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't classify our discussions at Amen as a dispute. Checking other users contributions is not harassment either. To clarify for others, I'm 90% certain that this article was the result of paid editing and I have asked Earflaps, but they deny it. SmartSE (talk) 23:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please reread WP:Casting aspersions. Earflaps (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Looking through sources -- of course we can't seriously consider the subject's own website, Facebook page or blog-hosted resumé, collectively cited over two dozen times -- I see an awful lot of passing mentions or opinions provided by this guy on one event or anoher. But I don't see a heckuva lot about him and his life. Fortune 1990 is a perfect case in point: "...BSB agreed to pay as much as $800 million...for exclusive film rights, estimates Nick Lovegrove, a principal in McKinsey & Co.'s London office...." Really? This, and using two book reviews of a single book for 16 footnotes, is symptomatic of mining for dribs and drabs to puff up the reference count we have seen in other places, invariably conflicted, and it's not sound article building. The creator's cries of wikihounding are a distraction and irrelevant to the article's merits. WP:TNT and let somebody else build it instead. Brianhe (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, more people joining in from the Daniel Amen discussion. I started this Lovegrove page because I found his name on Collaborative_leadership - and I've included so much detail because when I post a "fringe notability" page and don't want it speedy deleted for not asserting notability, I include everything I've collected that is relevant (infinitely easier to cut after the fact than build). But I wouldn't have posted this bio if I didn't think it met the minimum requirement for 3 significant reliable sources - I would have mothballed it for being a WP:TOOSOON. Earflaps (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see the notability. Maybe he's amazing and merits not only a Wikipedia page but a large statue in a public place and his very own bank holiday. But that's not what the sources say. The Guardian: a passing mention. Fortune: a two-sentence quote and his views on a topic; nothing about him. The Independent: better. If the other sources expanded on this, then maybe. The New Zealand Herald: One sentence, not enough. The New Statesman: I question the reliability of the website, which is not that of the Statesman. It may be a perfect reproduction. Or not. Either way it's another brief mention. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 04:29, 22 December 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.