Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan-Mark Parsons


 * 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. Save for the fact that my eyes hurt reading through this discussion, there seems to be some consensus that WP:GNG is met here. I would like to take this opportunity to urge both the nominator and JPA24 to use indented replies, rather than comments, and (especially for JPA24, as is mentioned below by several other users) to write with a greater degree of brevity. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ &#124; ✉ talk page &#124; 22:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Ryan-Mark Parsons

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is a possibility that the original article created violated policy regarding conflicts of interest, and information that had been put on the page initially had unsafe data in regards to where it came from, which is available from the page creators history. Potential violation of Speedy Deletion Policy A7 (No indication of importance), which was flagged up at articles for creation and declined - but this article was still made anyway by the OP. Kadzi (talk) 21:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep Hello Dr. Kadzi. Thank you for brining this discussion to the table. I wanted go through what you mentioned above and be absolutely transparent and factual in my response in order to explain why this article shouldn't be deleted.


 * Regarding the 'possibility' of the original article violating any conflict of interest policy, this was addressed during the early weeks of the article being published and the user that raised the concern accepted after my explanation that there was no conflict of interest with the subject of the article. This can be seen on my Talk Page's history where the conflict of interest notice was removed after coming to an understanding with the user who raised it. The article has never been marked as imbalanced, and when writing about Parsons, a neutral and accurate point of view was always consistent, fundamentally because there is no connection between me and the subject of this article and that has already been explained.


 * Being relatively new to Wikipedia and grateful to users like yourself, Dr Kadzi, and my own research on the guidelines - I was able to learn that original research is not accepted on here. To address 'unsafe data', anything that fell into this category was removed immediately. Regardless, even factual information from social media brought to the page was accurately cited from secondary sources from Wikipedia accepted publications; anything from MailOnline, Express etc. were also removed and replaced with trustworthy publications which featured Parsons.


 * Initial concerns were raised about the subject's importance or notability, these concerns were raised PRIOR to Ryan-Mark making an appearance on Good Morning Britain on ITV with Susanna Reid, Ben Shepard and Kate Garraway in January 2020. He was a guest celebrity panelist (all cited from recognised publications). His appearance on GMB led to international news coverage (again, all cited) from Australian and New Zealand press as well as national and regional coverage in trustworthy secondary news sources. If the notability of the subject changes, and according to notability of entertainers, Parsons continued to appear on national TV and radio, along with national trustworthy articles published that surrounded these appearances; I found the original concern over notability no longer accurate.


 * Since appearing on The Apprentice UK, Parsons has appeared on Good Morning Britain, BBC Asian Network, BBC Radio 5 Live, London Live (upon further research, not all candidates are offered these media interviews) and very recently Hits Radio with Wes Butters and has cited in interviews with trustworthy news sources that he intends to continue media work (all of these appearances were included in the article). Again, criteria for notability includes individuals having significant roles in multiple TV shows - Parsons has been the only celebrity to be interviewed in all of these broadcasts and has received national press coverage for these appearances.


 * Regular coverage in national news - all secondary sources that have covered Parsons' activities in public and controversies with fellow candidates after The Apprentice was broadcast. At the time of contributing to this discussion, Parsons was featured in serval national publications at the start of May 2020. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources (that have all been cited) that allow Ryan-Mark Parsons to pass General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - these have been cited in the article. This press coverage has sustained from October 2019 and recently in May 2020, where Parsons has been interviewed and secondary articles published about him in national sources. There are significant tabloid citations, but this a reflection of Parsons' tabloid-type and populist persona.


 * List of significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources:


 * 1) 
 * 2) 
 * 3) 
 * 4) 
 * 5) 
 * 6) 
 * 7) 
 * 8) </li>
 * 9) <li></li>
 * 10) <li></li>
 * 11) <li></li>
 * 12) <li></li>
 * 13) <li></li>
 * 14) <li></li>
 * 15) <li></li>
 * 16) <li></li>
 * 17) <li></li>
 * 18) <li></li>
 * 19) <li></li>
 * 20) <li></li>
 * Another case for importance and notability is having received a well-known and significant honour, it was mentioned on The Apprentice that Parsons was a recipient of the Fellowship of the Royal Society of Arts. With this this particular Fellowship, there is no database to cite and this is the issue most Fellows face on Wikipedia in terms of verifying the award. However, mention of this in national broadcast gave reason to cite in the article and is another reason why I considered this individual to be notable for a Wikipedia entry. Of course, if you advise this should be removed from the article, I will of course make changes to improve the quality of what has been written.


 * Parsons being the youngest-ever candidate in the history of The Apprentice UK (since 2005 and all cited from official BBC website in press release on each candidate), was a reason to look further into his continued media work and there being a wide press interest in the subject with large fan following.


 * I thought it might be worth mentioning several candidates from The Apprentice UK who have appeared on further television or have had significant press coverage have been entered onto Wikipedia. Of course, there could be a reason for their deletion and perhaps discussions have been made in each of their articles; but deleting the article on Parsons for the reasons you mention above put all of the existing Wikipedia entries on any of The Apprentice UK candidates in jeopardy too.


 * I have consulted with more experienced users to improve the page whilst under review as well, and have since made changes to the external links and have removed excess social media profile links from the article; removed 'entrepreneur' from his title as there are no trustworthy independent sources that can support this; and updated the format of the article by moving early life details away from the lead of the article.


 * I have also added detail of further media work, including Parsons appearance on BBC Two's The Apprentice: You're Fired & You’re Hired in which Parsons co-presented the first part of You’re Fired and was interviewed by comedian Tom Allen.


 * It’s also mentioned in the original article that Parsons featured in the one of the UK’s most talked-about TV moments of 2019 - which not only received press coverage at the time of broadcast, but more coverage after Freeview made this announcement.


 * Going forward, to improve the quality of the article I can forward to Articles for Rescue and manually review all citations, to get the best secondary sources that are independent to Parsons that currently exist (if not already cited in the article). I would be completely open to working on any suggestions to improve the article.


 * The more I learn about Wikipedia the more I understand discussions like this are hugely valuable for the platform. Based on the guidelines I've read and applying this to the subject, I still believe there is sufficient importance and notability for a Wikipedia entry. I hope I have been clear in answering the concerns you raised in regards to conflict of interest violation that was reverted. Also, the initial concern over Parsons' importance (which was before his live TV debate and other TV/radio appearances and subsequent international press coverage). I have always strived to be accurate when contributing to Wikipedia, including this discussion, and I hope that I can use this discussion as an opportunity to learn and take any feedback from you to improve this article, including the ways I mentioned above. JPA24 (talk) 00:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:54, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment My main reasoning for this article being unsafe, apart from the potential conflicts of interest, are that the person is wholly unnoteworthy, and before his appearance on The Apprentice, would relatively be unknown and not of importance to constitute an article. If you attempted to make the article using appropriate references before his appearance, it would not be possible. None of the other contestants from that series have a wikipedia page, and more appropriately, their names redirect to that series' Wikipedia page as a whole, where their names are listed anyway. Redirecting to the apprentice's page or deleting would be appropriate. <i style="background-color:#006400; color:#fff">   Kadzi  </i>  (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Dr. Kadzi. As mentioned previously, another user raised concerns over conflict of interest, but they later reverted this (which you can track on the Talk Page), as there was appropriate discussion over there being no conflict in the creation of the article. Of course, if you still believe there is a conflict, I can only state what I have mentioned before to the other user. In my opinion, notability is developed, there are articles on prolific figures who rapidly attained notability. The test for notability passes WP:GNG as there is significant independent coverage from reliable sources here in UK and internationally - these are mentioned above here and cited in the article. It has be acknowledged, Parsons carries this tabloid-type, populist controversial persona that attracts sensational headlines, but all sources cited here and in the article are deemed reliable and special effort was made to remove coverage of him in outlets such as The Sun, MailOnline, Daily Star and other banned independent sources that aren't reliable. Many reputable and independent sources are included too e.g. The Independent, Radio Times, The Evening Standard, The Sydney Herald, NZ Herald etc.


 * Regarding other contestants, Parsons has continued his media presence by appearing on various TV & radio shows e.g. Good Morning Britain, London Live, BBC Asian Network, BBC Radio 5 Live and recently Hits Radio. Whilst conducting research on other candidates, there is only one other candidate from his series, namely Thomas Skinner, who has also appeared on further major TV shows. It's also worth mentioning, Parsons has had significantly more press coverage than the majority of the candidates; recently in May 2020 he and another candidate were involved in a controversy (unrelated to The Apprentice) that was reported by nearly every major online newspaper. But for comparison, other Apprentice UK candidates from previous series have Wikipedia articles, but not all of their fellow contestants from each of their series have their own article. If other candidates from Parsons’ series don’t have Wikipedia articles, this shouldn’t somehow go against Parsons having his own (for all of the reasons I’ve outlined thoroughly), based on precedent.


 * A lot of his media coverage has been unrelated to The Apprentice, often covering Parsons in public. One example of Parsons eating at McDonald's with knife and fork, which was featured in a popular celebrity podcast based in USA and the majority of online newspapers in UK. Also, after his GMB debate on koalas (again, not related to The Apprentice) press coverage reached Australia and New Zealand, as well as majority of online newspapers in UK. Although this doesn't count towards notability, due to Parsons being youngest-ever Apprentice candidate, this would suggest a wider interest for there to be encyclopaedic coverage on this individual, along with all of the reasons to suggest notability I've already mentioned above.


 * A further test for notability is "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following" WP:ENT#2, as The Evening Standard reporter suggests, "after garnering a fan base while on the show" Parsons argued with another contestant argued over him charging for signed photographs and personalised videos. This story on Parsons was also reported independently by other reliable sources. JPA24 (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Just an update on the discussion. I have made several changes to the article (after getting some tips from experienced users) to make the content more clear and have added further information that covers Parsons' media work and press coverage; cited by a mixture of independent sources and national newspaper interviews (unrelated to The Apprentice and largely from 2020). JPA24 (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment A few articles directly after his appearance should not constitute a cult following; and staged tabloid articles do not constitute thorough media coverage. Other contestants gained similar coverage and invitations to talk shows, for example, Skinner. <i style="background-color:#006400; color:#fff">   Kadzi  </i>  (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Not even the winner has a wikipedia article; other contestants rightly so redirect to the series page
 * Parsons' had less interest over time according to google data, compared with Thomas Skinner and Pamela Laird, for example
 * Twitter following at time of writing:
 * Ryan Mark: 15.5k
 * Thomas Skinner: 82.5k
 * (Winner) Carina Lepore: 27.2k
 * Lewis Ellis (Verified): 15.1k
 * Lottie Lion: 16.8k
 * Note: Other twitters not checked but likely to be around the same or lower than Ryan-mark's.


 * The small amount of press coverage simply does not offset the overall insignificance of the character; and I invite you to attempt to successfully create the other higher-publicised characters if you are such a fan. <i style="background-color:#006400; color:#fff">   Kadzi  </i>  (talk) 20:54, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Thank you Dr. Kadzi for the further discussion points. As I mentioned too, one other candidate, Skinner, was also invited onto talk shows post-Apprentice. So far, Parsons and Skinner and are the only candidates to have continued UK TV appearances on shows like Good Morning Britain. Perhaps I will create an article for him in the future, but I focused on Parsons as it was made clear in press he was the youngest-ever candidate and therefore distinguished himself against other candidates who may also warrant articles based on the test for notability WP:GNG.


 * The cult following reference was implied by the journalist in The Evening Standard (previously cited) and other independent sources, after he faced controversy for charging fans for personalised videos and photographs. This was the suggestion in the articles that reported this controversy and of course, if Parsons is charging for this personalised material, there has to be a fanbase to facilitate the demand (as the articles suggest).


 * Regarding Google Search Trends and Twitter following. Out of 16 candidates from 2019, including multiple candidates from previous seasons, Parsons' ranks near the top for having gained the most followers on Twitter. Regardless, I must urge users to ignore reference to Twitter following, as this is not a consideration for the Wikipedia notability test WP:GNG. Many notable and highly successful public figures either don't have a Twitter account or a small following, therefore on the basis of your argument, they're not eligible for Wikipedia coverage if compared to other public figures from the same film, TV show or industry, if they have less followers or no followers at all. There is also no correlation between Search Trends and Twitter following. If you take the example of Pamela Laird, that you cited, even if she allegedly has a greater online interest over time in United States (according to Google Search Trends the nominator cited), her Twitter following is less than Parsons'.
 * Pamela Laird: 11.7k


 * I must also make clear, the Search Trend you cited was conducted in United States, it would be more accurate to conduct a search trend and cite data from United Kingdom, as this is the broadcast territory for The Apprentice UK. Based on data I've collected from the Search Trend in the UK, I actually found that interest overtime from January 2020 (post-Apprentice broadcast), is very similar for the four candidates, including Parsons. I would invite users contributing to this discussion to check this too. But again, I don't see how Search Trends are relevant to notability WP:GNG and I merely added this point to the discussion to make a correction to the data Dr. Kadzi cited.


 * If you or any user conducts a simple news search on Parsons' name, you will find significant national coverage that exceeds the majority of any candidate from 2019 series or before. Furthermore, from my research on Parsons and other candidates, Parsons is the only candidate from 2019 series to receive international coverage in USA, Australia and New Zealand (discounting Pamela Laird who is based in Republic of Ireland). The discussion point you made about Parsons receiving 'small amount of press coverage' is inaccurate based on points made before this and now. The same principle must be applied to other Apprentice candidates who have Wikipedia articles (the majority of which did not win their respective series); their press coverage is either less or similar to that of Parsons.


 * Once again, it is inaccurate to describe the other candidates you have mentioned as 'higher-publicised', as from the research I've carried out, Parsons has gained the most coverage from The Apprentice alongside Lottie Lion and Carina Lepore (winner). A lot of your discussion points aren't supported by any numbers, apart from Twitter following (which isn't a consideration for notability) and Google Search Trends which also doesn't define notability WP:GNG. I must raise concerns over your suggestion that Parsons' appeared in 'staged tabloid articles'. There is no suggestion in each of these articles that they are 'staged', the pictures have been taken and the news has been reported in the same way that many other notable figures will be captured in press shots whilst in public and later journalists will report this. I think it's important that if you have evidence to make that suggestion that Parsons' has appeared in 'staged' articles, you make it clear on this discussion.


 * Your recent discussion comments seem to only address the cult following point I made, but you haven't referenced the several other points I have addressed in this discussion that count towards Parsons' notability and thus eligibility for Wikipedia coverage. The fact you have also invited me to create articles on other notable candidates from 2019 series, would suggest to some degree you accept Parsons' notability and I cannot understand why you would then bring this particular article into this discussion for deletion. If you feel that other candidates with very similar if not less independent media coverage warrant articles on Wikipedia, then of course Parsons' existing article deserves to remain on Wikipedia.


 * I'm constantly improving Parsons' article and eventually I will accept your invitation to create other articles for the notable candidates that you mentioned from 2019 series. It is precedent with notable candidates from the past series of The Apprentice, which you can find very easily under 'notable candidates' on the main page of The Apprentice, to create articles in the interest of enhancing this platform that I'm truly learning to love. JPA24 (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 12:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong keep As mentioned in previous discussion, the nominator has invited me to create articles on other notable candidates from 2019 series, which of course would include Parsons, being one of three candidates to continue work on national TV & radio, alongside other candidates Thomas Skinner and Carina Lepore (winner). Therefore, I'm struggling to understand why this article was nominated in the first place, if nominator believes there are grounds for notability. Furthermore, Parsons has arguably the most press coverage from 2019 series, regularly featured in press (unrelated to The Apprentice) and near the start of May 2020 (most major UK online newspapers). Due to Parsons being the youngest-ever candidate in show's history, I thought they'd be a wider interest to have an article on Wikipedia, along with all of the reasons I have made clear that make him notable WP:GNG.


 * I have cited independent and reliable sources throughout this discussion and in the original article. Significant national and international independent press coverage that was generated outside of The Apprentice (months after it finished airing on BBC One - all cited above and in the article). The nominator also raised points about Twitter following and Google Search Trends to determine notability, which of course aren't factors towards passing the notability test WP:GNG. I merely referenced the The Evening Standard article cited above, in which a journalist implies Parsons has a cult following or 'fanbase'. Existing Wikipedia articles on past notable Apprentice candidates have survived deletion nominations, as they have proven notability in the same way Parsons has; they have the same if not less independent and reliable press coverage.


 * The nominator also suggested that press from Parsons was 'staged', but there is no indication of this by the reporters in their respective articles. This would make me question whether the nominator has a conflict of interest, perhaps they know more than what is written in the articles about Parsons? All of the press shots and subsequent articles of Parsons show him carrying out regular activities, and like any notable figure, they are often caught by press whilst in public. I see this as a further reason to suggest notability, due to independent and reliable news featuring Parsons focusing on these press shots.


 * In order to avoid being too repetitive, my previous reasons to keep this article are noted above very clearly (also in previous discussion). I'm completely open to feedback in order to improve this article on Parsons. If anyone has any suggestions to enhance its quality, I would be welcome to your messages on the article's talk page or here. JPA24 (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article is full of mostly tabloid sources, but there are a few reliable sources in there: Radio Times, The Independent, The Sydney Morning Herald. There does seem to be enough chatter about this person that bare notability can be met.
 * The nominator's rationales are:
 * 1) "Before his appearance on The Apprentice, [he] would relatively be unknown and not of importance to constitute an article." The argument is that the subject would not have been notable until he did the stuff that made him notable. That's true of pretty much anyone outside of a royal family.
 * 2) Other contestants on the show don't have an article, and they're more popular. This is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, and is irrelevant, especially going down the rabbit hole of who has more Twitter followers. Notability is not determined by the relative popularity of the subject compared to other people. It's determined by coverage in reliable sources.
 * I urge JPA24 to read WP:BLUDGEON and WP:WALLOFTEXT, and then take a step back and stop responding on this page any more. All of your long posts are discouraging other people from participating. -- Toughpigs (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs more input by people other than JPA24, whose walls of text are likely to be disregarded in the closing because we all have limited time.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   21:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would also urge User:JPA24 to be considerably more concise. Pick WP:THREE sources and then step back and let others in. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I would like to apologise, thank you to the users who have made me aware of this. I won't be adding anymore to the discussion, all of my points are listed above in favour of keeping the article. JPA24 (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - subject is notable, meeting GNG with references provided above. Nfitz (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.