Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Hoult

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. Courcelles (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Hoult[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a person not properly referenced as passing any Wikipedia notability criteria. The notability claims here are that he ran in (but did not win) a mayoral election and that he's chairman of a company, but neither of those are automatic inclusion freebies in and of themselves -- unsuccessful mayoral candidates get articles only if they can be properly established as having some other claim of preexisting notability for other reasons, and chairmen of companies get articles only if they can be shown to pass GNG on their sourcing. But there are just three footnotes here, of which one is his own LinkedIn (a primary source that does not support notability at all), one is verification of his candidacy and one is verification that he founded the company, which does not add up to enough coverage to establish permanent notability as a businessman. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and England. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Times article though would suggest that he does meet the verification requirements. JBD67 (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a lot more than just one newspaper article to meet inclusion criteria. One source is enough to clinch inclusion in Wikipedia only if that one source is verifying passage of an "inherent" notability criterion, such as winning election to an NPOL-clinching office, but nothing here counts as an "inherent" notability claim at all. So the only basis for a Wikipedia article would be "passes WP:GNG because media coverage exists", but that would require a lot more media coverage than has been shown here and still isn't clinched just because one footnote happens to lead to The Times. Bearcat (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Typically in the United States a single-time loser of a lower-level election wouldn't be notable. But there is more press coverage of this subject than I expected.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He has been written about in both the Times and the Evening Standard. This shows that he has met the verification requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBD67 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Verification" is not the same as notability. Lots of people can be "verified" as having lived and done something, but they are not necessarily notable. Delete as an also-ran. Lamona (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that verification meets notability. He has more independent sources listed about him than many other non notable people who have wikipedia pages. JBD67 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] JBD67 (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an FT article about him, which along with the Times and Evening Standard ones, shows that he is notable https://www.ft.com/content/fa1c4514-ec35-11df-9e11-00144feab49a JBD67 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] JBD67 (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES, campaign coverage and local political coverage should be discounted when evaluating notability for politicians. I don't think that WP:GNG is met. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails NPOL as an unelected candidate, and what isn't about the elections doesn't meet GNG. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.