Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Brooksbank

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. ✗plicit 12:25, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Brooksbank[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)

Non notable business people. Fails WP:GNG. DMySon (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. DMySon (talk) 11:03, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few one-line mentions of his name in articles about his son (who is married to a member of the royal family), but nothing that could fairly be described as the significant coverage required by WP:BASIC. The only significant coverage is about his contracting and recovering from COVID, which seems to be very WP:BLP1E to me. Girth Summit _(blether) 11:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The first reference is a mention of him in an article about his son, the second calls him "Princess Eugenie's father-in-law" (which shows that it's about the family of Princess Eugenie which is, thus, more notable than him in the article), the third is a mention on him on a list, the fourth atricle is also about about son, and the fifth is about Princess Eugenies and Jack Brooksbank worrying for him (at least mostly). MatEditzWiki — ^Talk!/_Contribs! 12:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bad faith article, undisclosed paid-for spam. Was moved into mainspace two weeks ago by CastiglioneCastiglione, whom I blocked for likely UPE spamming, the article was deleted via PROD, then immediately recreated by Ingaberg (now also blocked for UPE spamming). Does not deserve to be considered for inclusion on its merits. MER-C 17:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – adding my !vote toward a possible SNOW close per MER-C and the arguments laid out above. Not to mention that this is borderline A7 anyway... oh, so you're a businessman from a wealthy British family, how quaint... AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable person. I have read about him so want to look up in some offline sources. I will get back within a day. 2A02:C7E:1060:6D00:8DA9:F8AC:EF14:3B53 (talk) 21:16, 5 August 2021 (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.