Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry George (entrepreneur)
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 No censensus to delete on WP:RS/WP:BIO discussion after 16 days. --JForget 23:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Terry George (entrepreneur)[edit]
- Terry George (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Article is purely promotional; subject does not meet notability requirements by a long way; page maintained by the article's subject; subject has promoted himself on many other articles. Claims within article vary between the grossly inflated (his 'status') or demonstrably untrue (1st Civil Partnership in the UK) Strongly suspect articles maintained also by meat - and sock-puppets. Alchemy12 (talk) 06:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Yet another WP:AUTO, based on the other contributions of the creator. No reliable sources, though notability could be considered marginal considering the state of Mr Gay UK and Bent (magazine), where he is mentioned, and where the account in question has also edited. It doesn't seem like enough to warrant trying to clean up this article, however.JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've referenced 9 of the claims with reliable sources (Times, BBC, Yorkshire post), including the civil partnership claim (see the article talk page for caveat). Searching for and reading the references has convinced me the article deserves to be kept as the guy is notable enough. Definitely meets the "basic criteria" at Wikipedia:Notability (people), not sure what category he would fit into for "additional criteria" though. The article is too promotional (mostly in it's phrasing and the silly external links) but that can definitely be corrected by rewording it while sticking closely to the references added. The article is mainly maintained by User_talk:Daxuk. I don't think he is the article's subject although he obviously knows him as he's a photographer and has taken the photographs of him on the page. Ha! (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a meat-puppet query on Daxuk open at this time. IMHO a couple of appearances on low-grade TV shows and a lot of self-promotion doesn't add up to being notable. Civil Partnership claims remain untrue: see article talk page. At best, they were one of dozens of 'first couples'. --Alchemy12 (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (1.) I've based my opinion on reading the sources and the criteria - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". He meets the criteria because of the Times and Yorkshire Post articles (2.) It would have been fairer, in my opinion, to request the meatpuppet/sockpuppet check [1] first and then nominate the article after you had been proved right. Note that being a meatpuppet (if you're correct) is a bad thing, but the article's subject needs to be assessed on the criteria in Notability (people) (3.) WP: AUTO (if you're correct) is a bad thing as well but it strongly discourages someone from creating their own article rather than forbidding it. Neutrality and verifiability are it's concerns. You have already removed one claim that was not verifiable, which is a good thing, the rest of them seem more verifiable and haven't been removed. If you believe it's not neutral, you could balance it out. Ha! (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) I read the sources, too and came to the polar opposite conclusion. Unless this very minor sort of 'personality' qualifies as Notable here these days. If so, I'll quote my own appearance in the Guardian newspaper and set up my own article! (grin) Plus, even the Civil Partnership photos suggested a press/publicity stunt (what was that giant red shoe all about?!) 2) Don't see how you arrive at a scale of fairness on that one, but you're entitled to your opinion. 3) Yes, I could balance it out but a) I wanted the wider WP community to judge it as is and b) a couple of the alleged sock/meatpuppets on related articles have just re-inserted stuff they liked a couple of times. I've better things to do than enter a pointless edit war on an article that may well bite the dust anyway. Whatever, I've simply drawn the article and the editors to the attention of the wider WP community: how it goes from here is not up to me. --Alchemy12 (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. Thought I'd have a stab at tweaking the article (I have a cold and nothing more thrilling to do). Reads a bit less like a promo now, hopefully, but still not notable in my books. Others may disagree. --Alchemy12 (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (1.) I don't believe sentences such as the one including the (grin) comment are helpful. I recommend sticking to facts. (2.) What I'm getting at (sorry, I really should have been more open and stated it) is that I think it's possible you're using one (unproven) claim to support the other. If you have proved the puppetry and then done the AfD then your allegation of puppetry wouldn't be an allegation, it would be a proven fact. (3.) I cannot assume good faith in your edits any more. See my comment on IP 81.159.211.87 below. Ha! (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In case you didn't notice, I have said plainly both here and (I think) on the puppet page that this is my first time doing this. If you can't cut a newbie some slack... I'm pointing out that I believe the article to be iffy and possibly cobbled together my sockpuppets. One may support the other, but I have not made that assertion. That plus your knee-jerk reaction below kinda makes me feel free to set aside WP:AGF for you, too. Jeez! --Alchemy12 (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (1.) I don't believe sentences such as the one including the (grin) comment are helpful. I recommend sticking to facts. (2.) What I'm getting at (sorry, I really should have been more open and stated it) is that I think it's possible you're using one (unproven) claim to support the other. If you have proved the puppetry and then done the AfD then your allegation of puppetry wouldn't be an allegation, it would be a proven fact. (3.) I cannot assume good faith in your edits any more. See my comment on IP 81.159.211.87 below. Ha! (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. Thought I'd have a stab at tweaking the article (I have a cold and nothing more thrilling to do). Reads a bit less like a promo now, hopefully, but still not notable in my books. Others may disagree. --Alchemy12 (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) I read the sources, too and came to the polar opposite conclusion. Unless this very minor sort of 'personality' qualifies as Notable here these days. If so, I'll quote my own appearance in the Guardian newspaper and set up my own article! (grin) Plus, even the Civil Partnership photos suggested a press/publicity stunt (what was that giant red shoe all about?!) 2) Don't see how you arrive at a scale of fairness on that one, but you're entitled to your opinion. 3) Yes, I could balance it out but a) I wanted the wider WP community to judge it as is and b) a couple of the alleged sock/meatpuppets on related articles have just re-inserted stuff they liked a couple of times. I've better things to do than enter a pointless edit war on an article that may well bite the dust anyway. Whatever, I've simply drawn the article and the editors to the attention of the wider WP community: how it goes from here is not up to me. --Alchemy12 (talk) 14:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- (1.) I've based my opinion on reading the sources and the criteria - "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". He meets the criteria because of the Times and Yorkshire Post articles (2.) It would have been fairer, in my opinion, to request the meatpuppet/sockpuppet check [1] first and then nominate the article after you had been proved right. Note that being a meatpuppet (if you're correct) is a bad thing, but the article's subject needs to be assessed on the criteria in Notability (people) (3.) WP: AUTO (if you're correct) is a bad thing as well but it strongly discourages someone from creating their own article rather than forbidding it. Neutrality and verifiability are it's concerns. You have already removed one claim that was not verifiable, which is a good thing, the rest of them seem more verifiable and haven't been removed. If you believe it's not neutral, you could balance it out. Ha! (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is a meat-puppet query on Daxuk open at this time. IMHO a couple of appearances on low-grade TV shows and a lot of self-promotion doesn't add up to being notable. Civil Partnership claims remain untrue: see article talk page. At best, they were one of dozens of 'first couples'. --Alchemy12 (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete Can anyone vote on this? New to this. Anyway... Boils down to "has small column in low-circulation publication, been on telly a couple of times, owns a pub, not straight." If that's notable then so are half the people I have ever met. Promo piece and WP:AUTO 81.159.211.87 (talk) 07:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Note that from this edit it appears that Alchemy12 and the IP address 81.159.211.87 are the same. The relevant section is "Forgive me if my replies are perhaps not swift. As I say, right now I have to jump through a few hoops to see anything updated on this site. Will have a word with some technical bods. 81.159.211.87 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC) : please note, I now have an ID as (finally) we have a stable IP address here. Alchemy12 (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)" (I haven't squashed the two comments together, they were written together like that in the same paragraph). That IP has also made changes to the Terry George article just after Alchemy12 has. In my opinion there's more going on here than a simple AfD. Ha! (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We are one and the same. And yes, I wrote the comment you quoted. I'm hardly hiding that, I said it outright! The battery on my notebook ran out so I switched to my Mac while hunting for the power brick. I guess I was still logged in to WP on one and not on the other, didn't notice. As I don't use the Keep Me Signed In Option (shared computers) it's highly probable. But so what? Is it the vote you don't like? I did ask if I was meant to. Is it me personally you don't like? Bad day? Anyway, all rhetorical. Think it's better to just let you get on with it. --Alchemy12 (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There are at least two reliable sources there (the Times and Yorkshire Post cites) which are full-length articles about the subject, and that makes this a prima facie clear of WP:V and WP:BIO, regardless of the legitimate issues with WP:AUTO and WP:BLP1E. RGTraynor 14:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 2 RSs about nothing much amount to nothing much. First civil union is temporary news only. Of course, if it is kept, it can be edited--based on the news sources, the notability if any is running a string of nightclubs. DGG (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Ha!, the article easily satisfies the WP:BIO criteria and I see no other issues currently outstanding. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2008 (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.