Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Arnold (2nd 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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Arnold[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)

In light of the recent successful AfD for Pauline Barrett, I am nominating others who have received the same non-notability-establishing Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think there might be some confusion here about "non-notability-establishing". The award does not establish that someone is not notable. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An honorary degree is a notable achievement. The recognition that she received as the chief executive of a charity adds up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 2018, Bournemouth University awarded 10 honorary degrees, some to notable people, but also others to some of questionable (Wikipedially speaking) qualifications.[1] Clarityfiend (talk) 09:41, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Thsmi002 (talk) 11:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Isn't this an argument about whether the Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion is notable? In which case, the discussion should be on the talk page of that article, shouldn't it?--Ykraps (talk) 14:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That question has been settled by the deletion of Pauline Barrett's article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a clandestine conversation on another article's talk page counts as gaining consensus. I would argue that a national, government-backed award with substantial mentions in multiple sources, counts as a significant award.--Ykraps (talk) 07:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What "clandestine conversation"? It was a public AfD discussion. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A conversation about the notability of the Queen's Award for Enterprise belongs on Talk:Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion, not hidden away on the talk page of Pauline Barrett. I assume you know what WP:ANYBIO says and that is why you're questioning the significance of the award but you cannot claim that that issue has been decided because the proper procedure hasn't been followed.--Ykraps (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question about the notability of the award. It's whether the award confers automatic notability, and the decision by the AfD closer and lvoters was no, it doesn't. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ignore the fact that that was precisely the question I first asked and press on. Does winning a significant award automatically confer notability on the recipient? No, but that coupled with general notability does.[[2]] So your reason for deleting is, fails WP:GNG?--Ykraps (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Of the current references, two are announcements of honors received (and in local newspapers), and the rest are not about her specifically. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will repeat what I said in the Pauline Barrett AfD: I don't see why the award would not qualify for WP:ANYBIO - it's a national award, not a local one, and there were 10 recipients of that award each year, in a population of about 60 million overall. Assuming that about 3/4 of the population were aged 20+, the award was given to 10 in 45,000,000 people, or 2.22%, which is surely notable. Apart from that award, I will look for sources on this subject, and come back to !vote. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:18, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The award does indeed qualify for WP:ANYBIO but that is an additional criterion. Karen Arnold must first satisfy the basic criteria. The last time this article was nominated for deletion, there were enough sources to warrant keeping it but now I am struggling to find anything that doesn't just simply announce her as an award winner.--Ykraps (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no notability, only mindless promo and bad sourcing. Trillfendi (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:ANYBIO received a well-known and significant award or honor Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion only a handful of people receive the award. Subject is also the chief executive of a charity WP:GNG also received an honorary degree. Article is sourced. WP:NOTPAPER Lubbad85 (☎) 22:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can someone provide links to this "significant coverage" because all I can find are mere mentions that she won the award and so am currently erring on the side of delete.--Ykraps (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion where she is listed - no other notability - does not meet WP:BASIC (no "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject") - therefore, Redirect - Epinoia (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Besides being awarded a state award for business promotion, for what else exactly is the person notable? Because strictly on account of her being a businesswoman I fail to see how she qualifies. -The Gnome (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Gnome, she isn't a businessman, she's someone who promotes entrepreneurship through education and/or mentoring. The award is not for business, but for "enterprise promotion": it is typically given to people who are half in business and half in academia or the charitable sector, or who run incubators of one sort or another. Sometimes these are successful businesspeople in their own right, but the award is about successfully getting other people involved in business. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is the mentoring provided gratis? Do you suggest we assess her notability as an academic? -The Gnome (talk) 09:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The mentoring might or might not be provided gratis, depending on the individual in question. In this specific case, I suggest we assess her under the general notability guideline, as someone whose activities generate coverage and who has received a national award for what she does. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 14:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She charges fees. Arguing that she's just someone who "promotes entrepreneurship through education and/or mentoring" makes her work appearing as some kind of freely given benevolence, which it is not. She was running a business of promotion and she still does. The only claim to fame, as far as Wikipedia notability is concerned, is that award. Quite lame. -The Gnome (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No intention on my part to make any such suggestion. I think that might just be you reading into things. Bournemouth University and the Queen seem to disagree with your assessment of her achievement as lame. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion seems to be still ongoing and several editors have indicated that they are not sure yet of their !votes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NPERSON. She is known strictly for a rather non-notable award. I see Keep suggestions based on the fact that this is not a paper encyclopaedia. This is a standard excuse for trying to include everything under the sun, irrespective of the notion of verifiable notability mandated by Wikipedia, i.e. information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful; the "not-paper" attribute is not a free pass for inclusion. Most importantly, Wikipedia is not a collection of randomly collected biographies and information. -The Gnome (talk) 10:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient coverage of Yes Chef alone. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Well, even if that TV show, which her now-former company had created, were notable, notability is not inherited. Which the show is not. -The Gnome (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the arguments above: seems like a pretty clear keep. Sadads (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More WP:MAJORITY input. In the meantime, we're still waiting for sources. Friends, number of editors means little without any reference to policy and specific supportive arguments. -The Gnome (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability established, as per policy, by arguments above. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:18, 23 May 2019 (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.