Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Choularton


 * 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. Happy to incubate or userfy this and (almost) all my other deletions for someone willing to work on it. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Choularton

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO.  ttonyb (talk) 05:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * possibly Keep if rewritten. It is possible that his motor racing is notable--I myself can not judge its importance.  I think it's fairly clear that being the managing director of a merchant bank of the size given is notable, but of course it must be documented. Most of the rest of the article should be removed or much shortened.    DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that "Stephen Choularton was a director of C. P. Choularton, Sons & Partners Limited from 1970 to 1983" represents a sound basis on which to have an article about this guy.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, "being the managing director of a merchant bank of the size given" does not make hime notable, for two reasons. Firstly, we need evidence that he is notable in his own right: notability is not inherited in this way, even if the bank was notable.. Secondly, I see little evidence even that the bank was notable. Mere size does not establish notability, and there must be huge numbers of companies of the size that this bank was without any significant claim to satisfying Wikipedia's notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete if not rewritten largely per DGG. (His glass is half-full, mine's half-empty...). The subject and his wife do seem quite clever in some respects, as witness "They have gone on to create Organic Food Markets which operates markets on eleven days per week in Sydney and Newcastle ...", which would seem to indicate great skills in time management. Otherwise, he's a man doing a job. Sometimes a fairly high up job, but a job. Peridon (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete He has done lots of stuff, but like most people, he isn't notable for any of it. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep OK, you would expect me to say that as I am the author of the article, but ...

I consider I am notable in accordance with wiki criteria on two counts:


 * having being the Managing Director of a Merchant Bank with 5000 employees
 * Motorsport: having driven in a series where prize money is not trivial compared to the cost of the series.


 * I actually made the entry as I noticed two motor sport user groups were talking about me and wondering about me so I guess I'm notable to them some 30 plus years after the event and I thought it useful to put on record a brief record of the facts of my life to date. I guess it is the purpose of an encyclopedia to hold such verifiable facts that others might find of interest and Wikipedia has (very) many entries on living individuals of more or less notability.


 * Turning to verifiability, I have now added the reference to the Merchant Bank's file at Companies House in London which contains a complete history whose veracity is the product of statutory obligations under the various Companies Acts of England. I will add credible refs to the motor sport section.


 * Turning to style, I did try to write neutrally. Indeed, I noted that I never formally finished school, which is hardly flattering, and I will further review the article to ensure it is neutral in tone.  Of course if the article is left up anyone can make amendments in this respect.StephenChoularton (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – I don't think you quite understand the concept of notability. Wikipedia  based notability does not resemble "real-world" notability.  A person meets Wikipedia  based notability if, "...he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."  "Having being the Managing Director of a Merchant Bank" or "having driven in a series where prize money is not trivial" do not in themselves establish notability.   Nor does a listing in a website that states that you were a participant of the sport or Director from 19XX - 19XX.  Meeting the Wikipedia criteria establishes notability.  The coverage must be "non-trivial" and verifiable. Wikipedia is not the place to create a "What happened to page."  Perhaps a personal website would better fit your needs.   ttonyb  (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Blatant self-promotion, fails WP:NOTE. WWGB (talk) 00:37, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete A transparent attempt at self-promotion that is entirely unsalvageable. No prejudice against re-creation by a person without a COI using independent, reliable sources. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Self-promotion, with no evidence of notability. Many of the "references" are sources that do not even mention Stephen Choularton, and most of the others give him only a passing mention. As an example, one is a link to a page about the selection process for a party candidate for a bye-election. The only mention of Choularton is the statement that he received no votes in the selection competition. A few of the sources might go a little further than that to establish notability, but not much, and most are no better than that, or even worse. One of them was even published two years before Stephen Choularton was born, apparently because it contains a list of names including his father, but it is not enough to indicate notability even of the father, let alone of the son. Apart from the author/subject's plea, the nearest we have to a "keep" is DGG's "possibly Keep if rewritten", but what we are considering here is the present article, not some hypothetical better article which has not yet been written. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete blatant attempt at using WP for self promotion. WP:AUTOBIO and WP:NOTRESUME. Statement in this AfD like "I am notable..." demonstrate clear disregard for WP guidelines. LibStar (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * keep I am a Past President of the Young Liberals in NSW (1997) and if noteworthy means people know you, I can assure you that a large number of people in the Party and Parliament note Stephen and acknowledge the work he does. Clearly there are more noteworthy people than Stephen, but I think people will search for him and the information in the article find it useful.  Incidentally, I think the Herald's report on what went on at that pre-selection isn't accurate .  They are confidential affairs so that's as far as I want to go.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JFalinski (talk • contribs) 04:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)  — JFalinski (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment – Notability in Wikipedia means meeting Wikipedia criteria for notability, not if "people know you." The article is about a non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance.  The article fails WP:BIO.  ttonyb  (talk) 04:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. There was a bit of text in a policy debate once, "just because somebody's got some press doesn't mean Wikipedia should have an article on them." Abductive  (reasoning) 06:27, 21 February 2011 (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.