Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Spender


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Star  Mississippi  02:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Philip Spender

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

WP:BLP of a fundraiser, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. Apart from stating that he exists, the only other attempt at a notability claim here is notable relatives -- but notability is not inherited, so just being related to famous people isn't enough in and of itself. The only sourcing present here, however, is a staff profile on the self-published website of his own employer, which is not a notability-making source. As I don't have solid access to archived British media coverage beyond what I could find in a simple Google search, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access to such resources can find enough to salvage it -- but all I get on Google is more primary sources that aren't support for notability, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more than just primary sources. Bearcat (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, tricky one. We might be able to find WP:BASIC, but I suspect a lot of it will be in offline sources. I'm not sure what the best ATD is right now. Currently has a brief mention at Epistle to a Godson. Could have a mention at Index on Censorship where he's verifiably known to have worked for several years including as director and publisher (some of those are not independent) Most other mentions I'm finding right now are pretty trivial. There are a couple sentences of independent coverage here, but we'd need a lot more. &mdash;siro&chi;o 05:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. There's a broad claim to notability here that is not strictly inherited, and absent a good WP:ATD that can guide readers to the right information, I think I'd lean towards an IAR keep (noting that there is plenty of verifiable info) over a delete that would leave the encyclopedia a bit worse off. There's no single best redirect or merge target. &mdash;siro&chi;o 06:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. BLP requires strong sourcing and the single source in the article is a dead link. siroχo's BEFORE found nothing that meets WP:IS WP:RS with WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. If someone finds SIGCOV about the subject or sourcing and a suitable merge target, ping me.  // Timothy :: talk  16:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: Many mentions here, five hits for the Index on Censorship in Gnewspapers, and this . Oaktree b (talk) 01:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And some discussion here Oaktree b (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2023 (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.