Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Lord

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. While promotional tone could be fixed editorially, consensus is depth of sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 12:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Lord

[edit]
AfDs for this article:

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

Edward Lord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear why this person is notable, doesn't pass the criteria at WP:BIO. No depth of coverage. Lots of minor positions such as local councillor or chair of various committees, but nothing that would automatically grant notability. cagliost (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the article is just an extended CV, just a listing of positions held with no accomplishments or analysis. I'm thinking WP:TNT and WP:JUNK. cagliost (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lord is a trans activist and been involved with disputes over trans women using the "ladies pond" at the Hampstead Heath Ponds.[1][2] He was forced to recuse himself in a hearing over a trans worker's dismissal. [3] Also, some articles in the Daily Mail which of course aren't encyclopaedic references. WP:DAILYMAIL: variably reliable, reliably sensational.
I still think the sources for the article are sufficient.
-- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A. B.:, the Guardian and Inews sources you provide just have the same brief quote from Lord in his capacity as chairman of the relevant committee. These are Wikipedia:Trivial mentions, not examples of coverage of Lord as a trans activist. Given that, I don't think the Telegraph story is sufficient on its own for notability. cagliost (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @A. B.:, could you clarify what you mean by "Keep per Necrothesp (except for the bit about Who's Who)"? Given that Necrothesp says only mentions the OBE and the Who's Who entry, and says the OBE is "not on its own sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO", this appears to amount to a claim that the OBE is sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO, which clearly it is not. cagliost (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Cagliost Necrothesp wrote "Available sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG.". I read each of the journalistic sources in the article and they do establish WP:GNG per Necrothesp. I did not read any of the other sources. Regards, --A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 12:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is just a CV in textual form. There's a couple local news articles on him so notability's not at zero, but as it reads, this fails WP:PROMO and badly. SportingFlyer T·C 10:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur it's a lousy, promotional article. My understanding, though, is that if the subject is notable, we fix the article.
    I say this reluctantly as I spent 100s of hours as an admin 10-15 years ago mostly fighting spam; I always gritted my teeth at keeping notable COI articles. Now that I'm back, I still do.
    -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't think the notability is enough to keep, and the promo concerns stands. SportingFlyer T·C 20:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, don't getting why it failed WP:GNG Gerblinpete (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete Most of the sources here are either not independent (e.g. organizations he works for or with) or brief mentions. Three of the sources that go beyond a mere mention are about a kerfuffle relating to the Football Association, and do not say much about him. The only other one I see that is substantially about him is brief and limited to a controversy that he is a Freemason. What is most telling, IMO, is that none of the sources provides biographical information, and anything in the article beyond the reporting on these two specific incidents is essentially sourced in non-independent sources. Lamona (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more go...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 05:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are a lot of citations here, but the test for WP:GNG is significant coverage and in reliable, secondary sources and that is where we fall down here. A lot of trivial and passing mentions, but little enough in depth - although WP:ANYBIO tells us "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" but then also goes on, "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability" - and much of the coverage in this article is relatively trivial. We fail WP:NPOL as an unelected member of various boards and committees and Who's Who is indeed not the national biographical database. (I note source 32, Andrew Gilligan's Sunday Times piece - which would potentially have been a strong source - has been taken down - and source 24, seemingly a strong Telegraph piece, is in fact a letter to the editor) And while there was indeed a whiff of controversy over lobbying, we have WP:1E... All of which adds up to the fact that we do, indeed, have the CV of an accomplished candidate for a non-executive directorship of a nice, public company - but ultimately I don't think there is a clear-cut case for this gentleman to be considered notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments/response: (1) WP:1E addresses the question of whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. It does not contemplate that we would have a notable event and a person involved in it, and not have an article on either. So if 1E applies, and presuming that we are not going to have an article on the Resignation of Edward Lord or whatever, then 1E would suggest that the article on the individual should be kept. (I would preemptively note that I'm not actually convinced that 1E does apply here, and also that WP:BLP1E does not apply here at all for the reasons explained at WP:LPI.) (2) As a technical note, I believe the above citation to ANYBIO is actually meant to go to WP:NBASIC. (Which is good, since ANYBIO wouldn't actually apply here AFAICT.) (3) Absent some indication that a piece was taken down for substantive flaws, I am not sure why that would have any repercussions for our use of it here. It makes verification harder (the Wayback Machine only has some teaser text), but the hard copy of the Times is presumably still out there somewhere. (4) As NBASIC itself implies, there is a substantial gap between "not substantial" and "trivial". The best analysis of what a "trivial" mention is can probably be found at WP:GNG, which describes non-trivial (i.e. significant) coverage as having sufficient detail that no original research is needed to extract the content. So if we were trying to piece this guy's life together from the various articles where he was quoted in passing as chair of the Inclusion Advisory Board, that would be a legitimate case of sourcing an article to trivial mentions. That doesn't seem to be what's going on here: articles like this and this, which are entirely devoted to the Wikipedia article subject, might still arguably be less than substantial, but they are certainly more than trivial. -- Visviva (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still don't think he quite meets WP:GNG or other notability criteria. Had a minor role in the Richard Scudamore business, and mentioned in other news stories, but most coverage isn't about Lord in their own right. The story about him being a freemason is perhaps the closest to coverage about him, but even that is primarily an attack on his campaigning organisation by a newspaper opposed to their campaign (and hence only incidentally about Lord), rather than detailed coverage about Lord qua important person. With a bit more press coverage you might claim it cumulatively adds up, but he's not done any particular thing to make him notable. --Colapeninsula (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Atypical third fourth relist due to the late swing toward deletion coupled with continued spirited counterargument from keep !voters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 01:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - close but no cigar. Mostly as per Alexandermcmnabb. This man seems to just miss all the criteria and in such a way that adding all the near misses together still doesn't quite do it. Ingratis (talk) 07:49, 16 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Lord&oldid=1166583531"