Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Alexander Sutton

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 02:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Alexander Sutton[edit]

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

Sutton appears to be only known for the British Home Stores litigation. As always, please do prove me wrong. Pete AU aka ```` Shirt58 (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably not notable.--DThomsen8 (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sadly comitting fraud is not rare enough to be notable, and gladly enough of those who do so are convicted that being convicted is not in and of itself notable either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article has been created largely because it refers to someone currently in the news in connection with a possible fraud. Sadly, next month there will be another fraud, and the month after than another, and so on. Being suspected of committing, or actually committing, a crime is not in itself notable. As the preceding comment remarks, committing fraud is not rare enough to be notable, and although the particular case seems important right now this is just because it's currently in the news. RomanSpa (talk) 21:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's true he is in the news because of BHS, but the two bankruptcies and the conviction for fraud are earlier and completely separate matters, indicating that his notability does not relate to just one event. There is no BHS litigation or "case" involving Sutton. I will try to expand the article. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start. There are a string of things going back to 2000 covered in reliable sources. I will add more but I think he now easily meets the GNG if you add it all together. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not gathering anything minimally convincing for a solidly acceptable article here, there's loads of information but still nothing noticeably outstanding. Delete by all means. SwisterTwister talk 04:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been much expanded since the original nomination and all but one of the votes above. Now easily passes WP:GNG. Multiple mentions in multiple reliable sources, covering several events. Edwardx (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator asks to be proven wrong, and that proof is that there is no "British Home Stores litigation". 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just look at when this was nominated - a mere 46 minutes after page creation and after several edits building the article. It is utter nonsense to suggest a balanced view of an article can be taken while it is so clearly under construction. Even after that point there were enough references to satisfy a minimum standard of notability. Time would be spent a lot more constructively actually building the encyclopedia rather than instantly stomping on another user's good faith work in progress. 3142 (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As the article was expanded since most of the 'delete' comments, I am relisting it for a week, to allow the editors who have previously commented the opportunity to revisit their comments if they wish, and for other editors to comment as they see fit PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:44, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No longer falls foul of WP:BLP1E, the article (as improved since nomination) now cites several good sources and advances a number of claims to notability which satisfy the GNG. Fosse 8► 16:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GNG. per good sourcing.BabbaQ (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article and its sourcing are just fine. It might fail WP:BLP8E however. Thincat (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note There is a concerted campaign to censor the article which has been reverted. That ought to tell us something. Philafrenzy (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Not a WP:BLP1E situation, and the subject meets WP:BASIC. Hopefully early delete !voters will revisit the discussion and article to reassess matters, but from my experience at AfD, this often does not occur. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:24, 23 June 2016 (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.