Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Cohen


 * 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 delete. Consensus to delete seems clear. Drmies (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Simon Cohen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am bringing this article to AfD to hopefully resolve an issue raised by at Talk:Simon Cohen. The subject of the article has worked in PR, and most of the sources cited appear to be a result of his efforts to promote himself and his businesses. Does this make him notable? I'm not sure. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment his coverage appears to be either trivial (his own Facebook page) or related to Global Tolerance. A redirect, possibly to Global Tolerance (PR firm) would be ideal, but no target page exists and this page isn't suitable for a rename to that location. Power~enwiki (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If the article were created, Global Tolerance wouldn't need disambiguation. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep He is in PR, and the article about him has been edited by at least one person who knows him personally, as has been disclosed by that person. But he is also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts, which for me suffices for notability. He may be good at making himself notable because of his professional skills, but the criterion is "notability", and he seems to meet that criterion. Whether you got to be notable partly or even entirely by self-promotion is beside the point.   Paris Hilton was "famous for being famous", remember, and her notability no doubt involved the work of a lot of PR pros. As you see, there is a Wikipedia article about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Person54 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC) ‎


 * Strong delete recent IP 21:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC) activity that restored previously removed promotional material changed my mind.04:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC) Keep per comment below - WP is not a platform for activists or the promotion of same. Atsme 📞📧 00:34, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Try doing a search on  just the way you see it here and take note how many activists show up in the results.  — Myk Streja  ( who? ) 01:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe I'm the only IP to have edited the article, so I assume you're referring to me. What "promotional material" did I restore? I don't think I restored any removed material, promotional or otherwise, apart from references and citation needed tags. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I think you may be mistaken. The IP editor actually added to the burden of proof of notability be adding back edit tags. You should double-check your source. — Myk Streja  ( what? ) 20:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I checked again, and my conclusion is that I was not mistaken in this instance. It's promotional material that was added back. Atsme 📞📧 21:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That edit wasn't made by an IP editor as you originally stated though,, which I presume explains the confusion. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, what he said. — Myk Streja  ( what? ) 21:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * My apologies - I struck IP but the crux of what happened remains - the promo material was added back. Atsme 📞📧 21:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * No worries, it's an easy mistake to make given the number of edits there's been in the past several days. Thanks for the correction. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't I know that; apology unneeded and accepted. We give active editors the usual warnings followed by bannings, and we cut off IP users at the ... knees. This page will settle down once it looks like a real article. Right now we have a lot of excited people running around and spraying in all kinds of directions like a garden hose in the grass. I've seen it before IRL. It will soon be plodding along again — Myk Streja  ( what? ) 01:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC).


 * I don't know that the apology was directed as much toward you as toward the wrongly and inadvertently accused unregistered editor, but anyway, what is it that you mean by "cut off IP users at the ... knees"? Could you clarify that? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * IP users in general, you being an obvious exception, are difficult to pin down as a single individual who can be reprimanded and later banned for inappropriate behaviour. Banning comes quicker for unregistered users. Editors like yourself become known and your identity becomes, well, your IP address. (My name is 905...) It's an unfortunate bias, but the behaviour of more than a few IP users is disruptive and edits by IP users tend to get the fish eye.


 * That all being said, it was meant to be humorous. I'm glad to see you took it that way. — Myk Streja  ( what? ) 03:46, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - He acted in good faith as a promoter of social and ethical awareness in business practices. The fact that he had a company that handled the public relations for so many high level activists does not take away from his core beliefs: it simply gave him a larger platform. The article is slow going, but it is going. The AfD is premature. Discussion on how to de-emphasize Global Tolerance was just getting under way in the talk page. Perhaps an Under-Construction tag would have been a good idea. — Myk Streja  ( who? ) 01:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment As some of you may know, I published the first draft of the article, which is also my first article contribution on Wikipedia. Before doing that, I read most of what I could find on instructions, a lot on manuals of styles, guidelines, best practices and I used my own judgment and concluded that the subject is notable enough for WP. I followed more experienced Wikipedians advice on how to best go about creating an article when you have a COI, which suggested I create a draft for approval and disclose my COI. I have gotten so much help from editors from the very start, removing wording that’s promoting of the subject, altering the undue weight and increasing a neutral point of view. If my first draft failed to explain the notability of the subject that is my fault entirely, but I think the article is still taking shape, and I’m learning with it. I’ve been hoping to create a really great article, trying to add what I was considering to be relevant information, but maybe I have focused on the wrong things and should instead have aimed to remove and rewrite info. It’s not so easy to know once a draft is ready, or when an article is good enough. As a learning editor, I can only compare to other pages and the notability of other subjects on Wikipedia. And I think the subject is relevant, having spoken on one of the most popular radios in the UK regularly for two years, facilitating interfaith conversation and lifting social change-makers in the media, giving away his company, and speaking at many global events, and I’m hoping to be able to edit and further improve the article. MatildeZ (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: MatildeZ (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.


 * Note to closing admin, User MatildeZ has declared a connection to the subject of the article being discussed, as is easily noted on the article's talk page. — Myk Streja  ( what? ) 20:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * I made this suggestion on the TP of which basically suggests moving the article to draft space. Atsme 📞📧 17:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have history with this article, as on 4 May, in my third week as an AfC reviewer I accepted the draft. That was followed by and a flurry of activity on the article by a range of New Page Patrollers who carried out quite extensive cleanup, and I felt it appropriate to . I am not surprised to see it at AfD and I will be very interested in the outcome, given that history.
 * All respect to the editors helping with the COI editing. I can empathise with anyone with edit fatigue. Perhaps part of the issue here is the amount of edits being proposed via the talk page, and for that reason I think 's suggestion of moving the article back to draft has merit. In terms of the AfD though, the reason I have said keep is that I believe the subject clearly meets WP:GNG and any discussion of the content of the article is irrelevant to the notability question (WP:CONTN). To say that the article shouldn't be included in Wikipedia because the article is about someone skilled in the art of self-promotion is a flawed argument IMHO. The article seems well referenced and verifiable. That we don't like the article isn't a reason to delete (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Any justification to delete must be framed in terms of which Wikipedia policy the article isn't compatible with, and I am not seeing that here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete: Having participated in the editing and cleanup, and noting the discussion here, I continue to conclude that the subject is not notable. Simon Cohen's reputed activity is mostly talk, beyond what any ordinary PR operation does as its work which necessarily includes a media presence. The so-called "sabbatical" and "giving away the company" smack of spin and buzz, and in the first instance, of questionable validity (see Talk:Simon Cohen: it seemed not to guarantee resumed employment which is inherent to the very definition of sabbatical). I'm an inclusionist regarding information accessibility, but here I'd say that both Simon Cohen and his business are more ambitious than significant. Wikipedia's encyclopedic quality is derogated by including such individuals and entities bent on promotion, who talk much but achieve little. -- Deborahjay (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I have tried to respond to your concerns on the talk page for Simon Cohen under your section ‘PR is not activism’, where I presented my research on Cohen's background, awards, as well as appearances in the media, and talks given as a keynote speaker. Although I realize that the page is nominated for deletion in its current state and not with the discussions on the talk page in mind. As I stated in my comment above, if the draft for the article was insufficient or inappropriate, I apologize. I wasn’t sure about what information would be most relevant and therefore I have turned to you as editors for guidance. I have made efforts to introduce more relevant content and information on what Simon Cohen has done. I’m not sure I agree with you that Cohen is ‘all talk’. He is a public speaker though. He was also a host last week for the TEDxTeen on Saturday June 24th in London. It was live streamed by MTV and Teen Vogue http://www.mtv.com/news/3021858/watch-the-2017-tedxteen-london-live-stream-right-here/.MatildeZ (talk) 12:43, 28 June 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: MatildeZ (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed.


 * As an analogy, imagine there had been a charlatan who presents themselves to the media as a snake oil salesman, and mainstream newspapers publish a range of gushing articles about them and a Wikipedia article is created. Later, they are exposed for what they are. Should there still be an article on such a person? The whole episode may be of lasting interest. I think what is being argued here, to continue the analogy, is that having been exposed, the fraudster's notability is eradicated so the article should be deleted. I would argue that the article should be updated to reflect a balanced point of view pointing out the reality of the situation, backed up with new sources for verification. If you follow that line of thinking then if from your editorial research you've established that the "sabbatical", "giving away the company" etc. in the Cohen article are not all they are presented to be, the correction action would be to ensure that the article states the facts of the and let the reader decide. Notablity is not temporary and a reassessment would surely show that substantial coverage exists. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We've put considerable time and effort into collecting and citing Simon Cohen's business activities with one company that made a splash, likely because - as Curb Safe Charmer put it (above) - he is "skilled at self-promotion" - but what actually notable has he done? Hosting popular programs is rather devoid of content. Speaking at conferences: why was he included beyond professing humanistic values and picking "Global Tolerance" for his company's name? Organizing interfaith activities? On social media I see evidence of many, many unknown people at the grass-roots level, whether professional or volunteer, who are doing more. The business columns and talk-spots on media programs have given Simon Cohen a platform spotlighting his professional endeavors such as they are; Wikipedia needn't commemorate nor amplify this content by duly citing many or all those bits here on a biography page. Perhaps a page on the Global Tolerance (PR firm) could gather reportage of its rise and fall, if as a company it was notable as are others (a field in which I'm entirely ignorant). -- Deborahjay (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with . Cohen was covered in Times, Huff, Harvard Review, The Guardian, The Independent, etc.  Regardless of whether we agree with his philosophy, politics, or the way he goes about whatever it is he does, the guy is notable. Atsme 📞📧 18:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * What is he notable for? My objection has entirely to do with what seems a lack of substance for "whatever it is he does" - no matter how many major media outlets cover the same stuff he buzzed up in his promotional blender. That suits their editorial guidelines, but not necessarily Wikipedia's. You have to do more than "show up." -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Per the cited articles for starters:
 * He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts
 * His firm represented Dalai Lama and the Prince of Wales (I realize N isn't inherited), and
 * "Simon Cohen hit the headlines when he gave away his PR agency, Global Tolerance, to follow his heart and focus on what he valued the most – his family.
 * He received notability via the required independent coverage which complies with WP:GNG, and now it is up to consensus to determine if the article warrants inclusion in WP. Atsme 📞📧 19:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * A big part of the problem was Global Tolerance was overemphasized. Discussion on the talk page was about cutting that back and including more information on his other activities. And that is where I reached the breaking point. However, though I believe Cohen is notable based on what I've researched, the article itself needs a lot of work to prove that. We were getting there. As I said on the article's talk page and was said here, the article needs to revert to draftspace. Let's not kill it before it grows. — Myk Streja  ( who? ) 20:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Just a comment on previous comments about whether we are judging the present version of the article, or what it could become with some work. An AfD discussion shouldn't just take into account of the current state of the article. We should be able to evaluate notability here regardless of how good a job the article does with the sources. I can see an argument for moving it back to draft space to address concerns with tone, neutrality, etc., but given that the sources for this subject are all likely to be available online, we can assess notability here, based on sources cited in the article and any others that can be found and presented. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I would like to suggest a third option here: Move to draft There seem to be a few people here who don't want the article to vanish, but don't feel it's ready in it's current iteration. It should be used by those who would vote to delete because the article might become notable, but isn't now. — Myk Streja  ( who? ) 20:14, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As noted below, I'm not sure why we can't judge notability here and now. The vast majority of sources are likely to be online and accessible via a Google search, so I don't see what will turn up while the article is in draft space that can't be found in seven days of AfD discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The discussion has been muddied by the whole "move to draft" business. That is equivalent to deletion. and the "move to draft" theme here is a distraction.  The criterion for inclusion/deletion in the Wikipedia is notability, as evidenced by the article content.  Either the subject meets the threshold for notability, as established by other biographies, or it doesn't.  If it does, it should stay, and if it isn't a good enough article yet, people should set about improving it, the same as every other article in Wikipedia which can be improved.  If we create another form of deletion, namely moving articles back to draft status, for when the subjects are notable but the articles are sub-standard, there will be a lot of articles getting moved to draft space.  Simon Cohen is not the most notable person with a biography in Wikipedia, but as a Fellow of the RSA, as the former publicist of the Dalai Lama and the Prince of Wales (among others), and as frequent guest and commentator on British TV and radio programmes, he is at least as notable as many other Wikipedia subjects.  That is all that really matters in a deletion discussion.  Person54 (talk) 11:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. as promotional .  He apparently is notable,as Fellow Royal Socviety of Arts. But the article is absurdly over-personal, and worded exactly as he would have worded a personal web page, or a listing in a college yearbook. "Raised Jewish, Cohen does not subscribe to any religion, but considers himself spiritual.[5] In a 2016 interview, Cohen spoke about having developed a gambling problem at age seventeen. This led him to Gamblers Anonymous" Neither is of the least interest except to his family and close associates.  Even worse, the quote used above in defense of the article ""Simon Cohen hit the headlines when he gave away his PR agency, Global Tolerance, to follow his heart and focus on what he valued the most – his family." is unabashed promotionalism, and should neither be repeated here or used as a justification for there being an article here.  If the article is keep, and it should not be, I shall do some rewriting, to minimize the response I would expect to see later that "you accepted the article on Simon Cohen. You should accept my promotional autobio also.".  NOT PROMOTIONAL is basic policy, and supersedes all consideration of notability We can reasonably assume that anything written by a COI editor is promotional, for what else would they try to write?  The suggestion above, keep in draft for expansion is moving in the wrong direction. The standard for considering keeping this should be if it is fixed before the end of the discussion.   DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * comment -, I deleted the promo material, so if you get a chance, please take another look at it. Atsme 📞📧 00:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * comment -, I would normally agree with you that someone's religious beliefs and spirituality shouldn't normally feature in a biography. However in this case the article is about someone who has a degree in theology and promotes religious tolerance, so I think it would be entirely appropriate for it to state what their personal beliefs are. I don't see a problem with the lead section mentioning why he was motivated to give away his company, since that seems important to the article. It certainly needed rewriting though, and that's the approach I would advocate with this article. After much work, if there's anything considered promotional left, it should be excised, leaving the encyclopedic content, rather than see the whole article deleted. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is a close call. The subject may or may not be notable. It is too close to call. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Have the edits to the article changed contributors' opinions?

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:28, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is deeply ingrained with PR speak, but he appears notable through the press coverage, with the FRSA additional evidence of notability (not sufficient in itself though). It's true that the coverage in the mainstream media does relate to the event of giving his company away, but there is material from other times in business press and brief mentions in books. I'm not convinced that Global Tolerance as a company is any more notable than he is: after he left it quickly faded. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- this content should be excluded per WP:NOTSPAM; a PR professional in a nn firm is hardly a claim to notability. Notability is not inherited from notable clients or causes, and there's nothing else there. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment re Have the edits to the article changed contributors' opinions? this has become a bit of a moving target. The edits have caused at least one participant in this AfD to flipflop between 'keep' and 'strong delete'. By reducing emphasis on some of Cohen's activities the article becomes more about others. Having a section that is a long(ish) list of Global Tolerance clients makes the article seem more of a promo piece. As the draft stands right now, the bit about Jedis and the UN Interstellar Day for Tolerance brings down the whole article. It was the novelty of giving away his company that brought him to the media's attention and that has got lost in translation. It should be in the lead section as like it or not, it is key to his notability. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:23, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * It might be worth pinging participants in the discussion from before the relisting to see if they feel the same way: . 142.160.131.202 (talk) 20:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * comment - my main concern now is that even if the promo material is removed now to encourage more "keeps", there's no reason to believe that same deleted promo material won't be added back like was done during this AfD only worse. Atsme 📞📧 20:32, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * My vote is still Move to Draft. — Myk Streja  ( what? ) 20:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * While I'm still on the fence with respect to notability, that argument sounds like WP:SUSCEPTIBLE. You're right that the article may be susceptible to becoming promotional because it's about a PR professional who clearly has his own PR staff working on it for him. Similarly, "Israeli–Palestinian conflict" is susceptible to WP:NPOV violations because of the nature of the article's subject. But the solution isn't to delete the article – it's to work through the usual editing process to ensure that the article doesn't have those issues, whether we're dealing with political POV pushers or with hired PR staff. Why would this article be any different? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * While I would agree with you under normal circumstances, I can't in this case. It is not a matter of WP:SUSCEPTIBLE because it happened while the AfD is ongoing. Atsme 📞📧 02:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why would the applicability of WP:SUSCEPTIBLE be limited on the basis that things happened during the AfD? 142.160.131.202 (talk) 03:08, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. The agency might be notable, this person is not. This is pure promotion, and Wikipedia does not allow promotion of any kind – as someone said, "kill it before it grows".


 * For others looking at this: the sourcing is poor and needs to be reviewed – as an example, tedxteen.com carries a press-release-style bio presumably written by Cohen or his staff, but cited here as if it were a reliable source. As usual in empty puff-pieces, there is plenty of name-dropping, a good measure of unsupported material, and at least one trivial claim: "Cohen is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts". Well, maybe so, though the RSA doesn't list him as one; but why would it? There are 28000 "fellows"; they pay a joining fee of £75, and then £14.58 per month. Anyone can apply; the application form is here. It's like being a "friend" of the Royal Academy, though marginally more expensive. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I do not get why this is a hard one. The prose may be too promotional, but that's an argument for editing, not deletion.  At least that's the case where there's this much significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject. The Guardian, Entreprenuer, PR Week, BBC News, The Daily Telegraph, The Times.  I've read through these and there's ample independent reporting. The argument that the agency might be notable but the person isn't is lacking, as well.  These articles are about Cohen, and not just his agency. Easily meets the requirements of WP:GNG. David in DC (talk) 17:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 *  Delete Comment: no change to my Delete (above) - not notable. The multiple mainstream media citations repeat the same information: two splashy business schemes that generated a manufactured short-term buzz: shutting down the company and calling it a "sabbatical" (mainly for himself), and giving away the company after a reality-style competition. None of this activity evidently impacted his industry and the company folded not long after the transfer. This was apparently newsworthy, but WP is an encyclopedia, not a news feed. Neither is there evidence of impacting global tolerance, besides several talks - whether the popular Ted or other broadcast channel. Several citations are of interviews with Simon Cohen, so the content is directly by him rather than about> him. Likewise the "buy a membership" in the RSA makes it inadmissible for notability (Head's up, ) . -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC) / Redacted 19:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . Just a reminder that you've already backed deletion, above. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Pardon me,, I'd [mis]understood that a restatement was required according to the Relisting by User:Sandstein on July 4 and the request for repeat commenting by IP user 142 on July 5. I've redacted to word my second Delete as a Comment to avoid a duplicate count. Is this proper now? -- Deborahjay (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I think so, . The comment is a useful one, so I'm glad that you left it here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:23, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If notability for working towards "global tolerance" requires actually significantly impacting global tolerance directly oneself then I am afraid almost nobody's contribution to global tolerance is notable, . Global tolerance is one of those things which is achieved only by a lot of people working towards it together at the same time, and while some people are more or less prominent in that effort, and looked to as "thought leaders", I don't think global progress towards tolerance is much influenced by the presence (or absence) of any one person. It is a Zeitgeist kind of deal. I think you just don't like PR people much, and by your apparent criterion, no PR person can be notable.  PR isn't my cup of tea, either, but I reckon notable PR people merit Wikipedia articles as much as notable chess champions, or Philosophy professors, or bank robbers, or whatever lines of work you happen to think worthwhile.  It would be good to hear from someone in the world of PR about what makes for notability in that world, but speaking as a PR outsider and non-fan, I found Cohen's client list at Global Tolerance pretty impressive.  I don't think every guy in PR founds his own agency and has the Dalai Lama or the Prince of Wales as clients.  Person54 (talk) 22:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , see remarks above by User:DGG and User:Justlettersandnumbers on the (weak) significance of your particular points in favor of notability. Now let's take up your suggestion, not from "someone in the world of PR" but other WP pages right here: 16 others in the Category:English public relations people and 61 (!) in the Category:British public relations people. Here we can appreciate the nature and extent of activity by notable PR people. -- Deborahjay (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, did you look at those lists? I spot-checked the English list, and most of the people in it were apparently notable for something else.  In addition to working in PR, they were famous authors, politicians, journalists, or sex offenders.   The couple I noticed who were notable for their work on PR, were so because of their work for clients, just like Cohen. For example Tony Barrow is supposedly notable because he was a publicist who "worked with" the Beatles, as an employee of Brian Epstein.  Walter Hayes is alleged to be notable because he worked as a PR exec for Ford Motor Company especially in the field of racing.  The Matthew Freud article doesn't even mention why he is notable.   Derek Taylor is another PR guy who worked with the Beatles, and eventually other bands.  It seems like the key to PR notability on Wikipedia is to be the child of, or married to, someone famous, to have worked with the Beatles, or to be a sex offender or something else.  I guess Simon Cohen fails these tests, but are those really the tests? Person54 (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per Deborahjay. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:10, 13 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.