Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Baggs (3rd nomination)

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. ✗plicit 05:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Baggs[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-winning (or runner-up) reality show contestant who is not notable for any other reason. ... discospinster _talk 18:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fulfils WP:GNG as well as WP:SUSTAINED by the fact that in addition to being the subject of coverage from several reliable 3rd-party sources, that coverage includes more than just the Apprentice appearance. You could also make a case of him being notable under WP:ENT for his appearances on several other TV programmes as well. Plus the information on his death was extensively covered and not many get several articles on their death from the likes of the BBC. Even after his death, more coverage was available. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom, had been deleted per AfD before and only his death had been added, no idea why this not had been G4 CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because as @Black Kite: said, this is not the same PROMO piece that was deleted 10 years ago. Since then more sources that assert and affirm notability have become available. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. The current version has a number of additional sources. Whether those sources affirm any additional notability than they did regarding the previous version (especially as Baggs is obviously deceased) is what needs to be discussed here. Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ashley yoursmile! 03:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, somewhat contrary to my usual deletionist tendencies. Satisfies WP:GNG with solid RS refs. Doesn't fall foul of single-event, on account of the TV appearances and the widely-reported death, albeit only just. Not intended to promote anyone's career, etc. I'm not arguing that the subject is the most noteworthy, but it does seem notable in the WP sense, and I can't really think of a good reason to delete. And given the publicity this chap generated, if I were to come to Wikipedia and not find an article on him, I would be at least mildly surprised; an entirely unofficial inclusion criterion, perhaps, but somehow to me that feels like the proverbial litmus test. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources listed in the article are sufficient to meet WP:GNG. Sun8908 _Talk 15:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage from BBC, Radio Times, The Independent and other major national sources Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 9 May 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.