Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Instone

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. ✗plicit 14:12, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Instone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Business person does business things. Previously PROD'd as non-notable, then restored. Now tagged for notability. Let the discussion begin. Fails WP:SIGCOV so fails WP:GNG. UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Finance, and United Kingdom. UtherSRG (talk) 11:49, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Edit have been made to this, does it now meet the criteria for notability? GCatemAll (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I was the one who initially nominated it for deletion after coming across it by chance. I don’t know Mr Instone and have no issues with him, but I continue to believe that as the owner or manager of a small business with very limited exposure outside of that (a few podcasts or articles), he does not meet the criteria for notability (people). There are tens of thousands of people like him. 2A04:EE41:84:B3DE:FD56:1C17:3C88:4BDD (talk) 14:11, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I see at least four references from reliable sources. Is there not significant coverage? Ping me. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: What's needed is layed out in WP:SIRS. To wit, the sources must be WP:RS, yes, but also provide WP:SIGCOV and be WP:IS. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:06, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is one reference about the "field-marshal of finance". The rest (at least what I can see) appear to be passing mentions. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per above discussion. The first source is good, but more is needed for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2025 (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.