Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Barrow

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. Davewild (talk) 17:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Barrow

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources actually about the subject to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Sources offered are an incredibly long list of complete junk obviously intended to discourage anyone from checking. (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback Msnicki, sorry you think it's junk. can you say which references you think are junk as the majority are leading independent national newspapers and TV channels. Happy to edit so we keep this. Yogiyo10 (talk)Yogiyo10Yogiyo10 (talk)

Yep - seems to meet these criteria WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV - sure has significant coverage which has 'editorial integrity'. Maybe you think some of the references should come out? please say which. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogiyo10 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

They're all unhelpful. It is not enough to point to a lot of primary sources, internet listings and similar stuff and that's what most of these claimed sources are. I went through the list and it took me quite a while. All it takes to establish notability on Wikipedia is two good sources, defined as reliable, independent and secondary and actually about the subject. WP:RELIABLE means a reputation for fact-checking and editorial control. WP:INDEPENDENT means the author of the article cannot be connected somehow to the subject. WP:SECONDARY means that the author must offer his or her own thinking. It also has to actually be about the subject, it can't just be a trivial mention or a quote (or even an interview in most cases.)

It would be helpful if you could identify the two or three best sources that you feel meet the criteria. I've already said I don't think there are any. All it takes is two and if you can point them out, I promise to retract my nomination. Msnicki (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot User: msnicki - so i would say that links 5,6,10 and 11 are all reliable and independent. They all discuss his work in the context of a wider piece and express the article writer's opinion. They are reliable as from established media: The Caterer Magazine, The Telegraph, Computer Weekly, BBC. But you're right there are a bunch in there that are probably not needed and I'll take them out. Happy to retract your nomination on that balance? I'll make the edits now :-) Yogiyo10 (talk)yogiyo10Yogiyo10 (talk)

5 is an article in The Caterer Magazine about a study that was done by "accountancy firm Kingston Smith and the Cranfield School of Management". There is a one-sentence quote from the subject, described as a "visiting fellow at Cranfield School of Management". The publication may be reliable and article may be independent, but this source is unhelpful because it's not about the subject but about a study. Though he's quoted, the article doesn't report his connection to the study nor anything else about him. Either way, the comment is clearly WP:PRIMARY for reasons discussed at WP:Interviews#Notability.

6 is an article written by the subject, making it clearly WP:PRIMARY.

10 is also unhelpful. This is another article about the study and a new online tool being developed by Cranfield and Axa insurance. Three paragraphs are given to reporting the subject's favorable comments about the study and another three paragraphs to favorable comments from people at three other organizations. This is standard uncritical reporting of business press release material. Notice there's no byline. But also, the subject is described as "a director at Cranfield" and it appears he's talking about his own project. You can't make yourself notable just by talking about yourself or your work. Other people need to do it. His quotes and uncritical reporting of his views on his own work do not contribute to notability.

11 is a "Live Q&A" about writing a business plan. The subject is a panalist. This makes it WP:PRIMARY and unhelpful in establishing notability.

Fundamentally, none of these of sources (and I contend, none of the rest) meet our requirements as reliable independent secondary sources actually discussing the subject in detail. Msnicki (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We seem to be getting a lot of WP articles for authors at Kogan Page which makes me wonder if there isn't something coordinated going on. Notability for authors is not just a question of having written some books, and articles about authors need to be much more than bibliographies. There need to be reviews of the books, articles about the author and the author's importance in the world, etc. My gut feeling is that there will be few business authors who rise to WP standards. In a sense they are like the authors of self-help books -- they mainly give advice but there's little hard or even soft science to their writing. Like other authors, time (probably decades) will be needed to determine if their books have had an impact. If someone is dedicating themselves to adding these authors to WP, you might want to save yourself and the rest of us a lot of time by taking a serious look at WP:AUTHOR. LaMona (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona, I've opened up an SPI and had a hard time finding the common thread here until I saw your post here. From what I can see, this appears to be an article by one of several editors that are working on behalf of a marketing company. It looks like the common thread here is that they're editing about authors published through Kogan Page and for another publishing company, London Wall Publishing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking past the citation bombing, and the fact that the cited sources almost never contain anything relevant to the passage where they're cited, they also fail to establish that there is significant coverage about the subject in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources. The subject fails to meet WP:BASIC or WP:AUTHOR. Worldbruce (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Yogiyo10 has been confirmed to be a sockpuppet, so I've struck their comments. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:55, 24 June 2015 (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.