Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Wight


 * 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 Keep. The numbers would favor deletion, but the stronger policy-based arguments favor keeping. Clear passage of the GNG and ANYBIO guidelines is not trumped by the general assertion of promotionalism under WP:NOT. When the topic is clearly notable, as it is here (there were no serious arguments agaist that), and the article is not blatantly promotional, promotion can and should be handled by rewriting, rather than deletion. The sources listed by are particularly telling. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:13, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Robin Wight

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Dubious notability;clear promotionalism WP is NOT A TABLOID.  DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, promotional rather than encyclopedic. Previously deleted after Articles for deletion/Engine group as a bundled article. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nominator ......Sulaimandaud (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional. No objection to having it sent to drafts/AFC for significant rewrite to remove the overly promotional nature. Hasteur (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  21:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: In consideration of late dissent, if CVO status suggests notability, then what reliable sources support keeping this article?
 * Keep. Recipient of the CVO, which has always been held to meet the requirements of WP:ANYBIO #1. The quality of the article is irrelevant to its notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar  06:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep There are plentiful in-depth sources which indicate his high reputation in his chosen field. Telegraph, Evening Standard, Campaign magazine, The Drum (less famous marketing magazine), business books e.g., plus lots of interviews and stuff about his charitable ventures which show he's a prominent figure. And reviews of his first book. I suspect there are more references from pre-internet days. I don't know about the CVO, which is the 3rd tier of one of several British orders of chivalry, and probably not everybody with it is truly notable, but he meets WP:GNG. The article could be expanded with content on his ideas/books, and there's quite a lot of biographical info in the links I provided. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I strongly disagree with Colapeninsula's suggestion that the article could be expanded (if anything this article needs to be hacked way back to the roots) but for what it's worth, here's a reference for the subject's award of the CVO, which is basically the only truly solid argument for keeping the article.  A  Train ''talk 20:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- a WP:PROMO page on a subject of marginal notability. WP:NOT is a policy, while WP:GNG is merely a suggestion. This article reads like it was written by someone with a close connection to the subject and appears to be a tribute page. Such content belongs on the subject's personal web site, not here. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * However, WP:ANYBIO is a guideline, and he clearly passes that as recipient of the CVO! Given the endless numbers of one-hit-wonder minor celebs who have articles on Wikipedia, it is surely not unreasonable to expect someone considered important enough by the British establishment to receive the CVO (the third highest level of a five-tier order - usually fewer than twenty CVOs and considerably fewer than a dozen of the higher levels of the order are awarded every year) to have an article. He also, of course, has an entry in Who's Who. Or have we truly simply become a repository for fancruft on minor singers, sportspeople, soap actors and reality TV 'stars', but not people who have been significantly honoured for their contribution to their country (the CVO is five levels higher than the MBE, the common state honour for winners of a gold medal in the Olympics - we have articles on all those who compete in the Olympics, not just those who win a medal!)? And are we really okay with that? Because I for one am not. There is also considerable precedent for anyone awarded the CBE or higher (and the CVO is higher) to qualify for an article under WP:ANYBIO. In fact, I have never seen an article on a person with this level of honour deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * A guideline, such as ANYBIO, is a suggestion, while WP:NOT is a policy. Policy trumps guideline any time. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be if it met WP:NOT. Since it clearly doesn't and since AfD is about notability of the topic and not quality of the article (and receipt of a high state award from a major nation clearly indicates notability), that is utterly irrelevant. I notice all you do is once again quote WP:NOT without bothering to answer any of my points! You do know that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and not governed by unbending rules? -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Necrothesp. As a CVO holder the subject does appear to meet WP:ANYBIO. The concerns about the article's tone and cruftiness are entirely well-founded, but those would be appropriately addressed by taking a hatchet to the thing to excise the promotional stuff. (I did a double take when I first saw the entry and thought someone had brought Robin Wright to AFD. :)  A  Train ''talk 19:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete-Promotional spam. Winged Blades Godric 05:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hardly! And once again, AfD is about notability of the topic and not quality of the article. Starting to wonder why some editors don't seem to be aware of this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2017 (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.