Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Stone


 * 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. Consensus appears clear and of course Commander of the British Empire is considered notable as it apparently meet WP:ANYBIO. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:23, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Timothy Stone

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

COBE is usually considered notable, but this article is an example of WP:COATRACK that is so wrongly oriented that it would need to be started over. More specifically, a bio that doesn't include the name and place of birth for a subject where it should be easily available  is usually a quick promotional write-up, and a bio that places the education at the end and gives the career in reverse chronological order is almost always a press release. If that's all that's wrong it can be rewritten, but when the bulk of the article is links to the persons own presentations, and makes unprovable assertions (e.g. "along with others") it's not worth it.  DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Recipient of the CBE, which is always held to satisfy WP:ANYBIO #1. The article isn't that bad that it needs to be deleted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I agree this is a far from satifactory article, but not bad enough for deletion. The subject is clearly notable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I agree with Peter above, the subject is clearly notable. The article has been improved today, with year of birth added from a reliably sourced biographical article published in The Independent. --Danimations (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2015 (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.