Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Scholes-Fogg


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Tom Scholes-Fogg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested WP:PROD by an IP. Notability concerns; the subject of the article doesn't seem to have done anything notable, per WP's definition. There are a bunch of sources in the article, but the only ones that discuss the subject of the article in any remotely significant way are self-published, and therefore cannot be used to establish notability. WP:NAUTHOR doesn't apply, because this individual is not the author of a book, he is an editor of a book. ‑Scottywong | converse || 03:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  ‑Scottywong | converse || 03:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  ‑Scottywong | converse || 03:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject is mentioned in a few reliable sources, but non-trivial depth-of-coverage requirement doesn't seem to be sufficient for WP:BIO. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - I was leaning towards Keep until I looked into the references, which appear to be mainly WP:REFBOMBING - of the two book reviews, the one in Total Politics is a press release for the upcoming book and says, "I have co-edited a book," so the review is obviously by the author - the publisher, Queensferry, doesn't seem to exist (there is a Queen's Ferry Press, but different company) and the book was published through Smashwords, a self-publishing company - the other review link is to a Library Services blog and was written by a marketing firm, so may be a paid review - altogether, I couldn't find any "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject" as required by WP:BASIC - the only thing that could save this article is if the founding of Emergency Services Day (United Kingdom) to educate the public about emergency services could be considered "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" per WP:ANYBIO, but it doesn't look like it - Epinoia (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2019 (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.