Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Bagshaw

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Bagshaw[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman, who is on some consultative committees for disability advocacy. Another alumni of Newington College by Castlemate (talk · contribs) Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 12:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This subject looks as though they should be notable, but I cannot find the references to support it. If all the claims in the article can be independently referenced then it would easily pass GNG. Aoziwe (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As Aoziwe said, it looks as though they should be notable, though I found just enough references to support keeping it. Would be much easier if the claims in the article were independently referenced. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Essentially in agreement with Aoziwe and The Drover's Wife above. Things said in the article suggest notability but the references often don't support the claims (example - the Australian Story stuff, which would not be enough by themselves but could be significant supporting coverage - but the reference only goes back to 2005). Even on what I've found he's not that far off, though (this is better than most of the in-article references), so very open to convincing with more sources. Frickeg (talk) 10:38, 15 December 2017 (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.