Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Leslie-Carter


 * 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 and keep since there are no BLP concerns over the article. The main question in this debate has been whether the awards Mr. Leslie-Carter has won are a sufficient basis for notability, and with no consensus that they're not sufficient, and with a reasonable case being made for either side, this article stays. As noted, improvements to the article are desirable, at present there are no categories listed. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Rob Leslie-Carter

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article reads like a CV while the subject seems to be not notable. → Christian .И  21:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to fail WP:BIO. There's a remote possibility he would qualify for WP:PROF, but that fails as well. I can't find anything on him in any reliable sources. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 21:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep It may be worth improving the content if it reads too much like a CV, but the references given do contain 'reliable secondary sources' which makes the subject notable albeit in a specialist field —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claire Saxby (talk • contribs) 22:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I support deletion anyway, but I wanted to mention that if it's even kept, it should be moved to Rob Leslie-Carter to fit conventions. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 23:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have made minor edits to this entry including adding some 'notability references' up front for clarity. I believe these demonstrate compliance with the notability guidelines as show significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There are also some broader (non work) biographical references in some of the referenced interviews, which would be interesting later additions.Claire Saxby
 * You "vote" once only. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The only real claim to notability is the 2003 Manager of the Year award. Good but not enough in the absence of other independent coverage. The other references are mostly to the Arup website (non-independent coverage) and one to the alumni newsletter. The plain google search results lisyted are not impressive (only 68 ghits) and there is only one hit in GoogleScholar. Nothing in GoogleNews. In my opinion fails WP:BIO and certainly fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Gee tough crowd! The award is from the largest independent professional body of its kind in Europe, with over 16,500 individual and 450 corporate members throughout the UK and abroad.  Wrt the Arup references, fair point but the first two ( and ) are independent magazine articles that are just scanned as pdfs on the arup site (i.e. they are reliable and independent).  Of particular note is that both references have very good depth i.e. they are multi-page articles specifically about the subject.  I agree with the subject fails WP:PROF but it ticks all the boxes for WP:BIO.Claire Saxby


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not for CVs. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Again fair point (and yes sorry about the double vote), but the notability is work related so it tends to be a bit CVish. Like I said above, there are also some broader (non work) biographical references in some of the referenced interviews, which would be interesting later additions.  Looks like I'm struggling to convince though.Claire Saxby
 * Comment. We should note that he is Claire Saxby's husband. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep needs rewriting in the correct format, but the awards are sufficient for notability. I started the rewrite by removing the duplicatelist of references at the start.  DGG (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep but improve per DGG. giggy (O) 06:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. Seems notable enough for an article here.--Sting  Buzz Me...   11:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Per DGG. Five Years 05:57, 24 June 2008 (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.