Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Crowther


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Simon Crowther

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable individual. The best coverage available is the mentions in relation to student loans, but that is clearly not enough to meet WP:BIO. RE "notability appears established with the award & Forbes coverage" Business awards are two-a-penny and are often just the result of buying an expensive gala ticket. Neither of those seem like important awards and the references are primary sources. The Forbes "coverage" is just a photo of him - i.e. not substantial coverage. SmartSE (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll take your word for it; not my area of expertise at all. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Another run-of-the-mill small entrepreneur. --Calton | Talk 00:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Run of the mill" is not a valid WP:DEL-REASON and there's no problem with being small so long as there is coverage in reliable sources. ~Kvng (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course it is a valid reason. Admins read the reasoning behind the vote and are expected to look for policy based reasons, even if the ALLCAPS isn't cited. I'm assuming was saying that the coverage was routine and run of the mill, which is a perfectly valid reason to delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - Coverage appears to meet WP:GNG as sources are reliable and these are not passing mentions. I'd like to know why it was "not enough" for the nom. ~Kvng (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was trying to explain that although the student loan coverage  is substantial, the coverage is essentially BLP1E. We shouldn't have articles about people who write a letter that goes viral for a day. Other than that, we have coverage in local newspapers (Nottingham Post) and other low-quality sources (Love Business East Midlands, Startups.co.uk). I admit that the subject is close to notable, but I don't think the available sources are sufficient. Which do you consider are the ones that push it over the threshold? SmartSE (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * puts it over the threshold for me. It is not about the loans. It is local coverage but local is not a problem for people, only for companies. ~Kvng (talk) 17:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for explaining. I dispute that local coverage is only a problem for companies as local newspapers write so many articles about people that there is often a consensus that they are not of use for determining notability. In addition, that's still a single source though, so not enough for GNG even if it is considered reliable. I'll leave it to other !voters to decide. SmartSE (talk) 18:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of anything in policy or outcomes to support your position on local sources. If there is, please show it to me so I can adjust appropriately. In this case, there is also substantial non-local coverage (that you'd like to discount for other reasons). On whole, not a very strong delete case here. ~Kvng (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * We routinely ignore local sources in AfD as they establish virtually nothing other than the local paper needed to run a story to fill things by the deadline (same for local TV news). The only time we count local press is when someone pitches a fit and demands the line and verse for that routine practice. Practice is the basis of all policy, and on a BLP especially we would likely not be overly favourable to local press. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I do spend a significant amount of time at AfD and this is not my experience. My experience is more along the lines of what's described at WP:NLI. ~Kvng (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have an opinion on local sourcing that tends to be out of the mainstream when it comes to AfD. The proposal you cite failed. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, for what it's worth. I wrote the article, so I'm not sure if my vote counts. I already gave my reasons on its talk page. --Squidshark (talk) 14:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable awards that don't bring the presumption of notability under WP:ANYBIO and the coverage is either routine and expected or WP:SPIP, so doesn't count towards the GNG. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: A short article about a "viral" social media post and a couple of articles about a company he apparently runs is not "significant" coverage of the man himself. The awards are meaningless fluff. I would suggest that his company is more likely to receive the significant coverage for notability in the future. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: "British Young Entrepreneur of the Year" is not an honour that creates a presumption of notability, and there's nothing better. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2018 (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.