Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellis Watson

: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. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Ellis Watson]]=

:{{la|Ellis Watson}} ([{{fullurl:Ellis Watson|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ellis Watson}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

While there is a claim to notability, the claim feels like a tall tale and has no verifiability. Tyrenon (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete He was [http://www.speakerscorner.co.uk/file/d10cffd0656ee321e27ab54c49dbfb4f/watson-ellis.html managing director] of Celador (WWTBaM parent) once, but I can't find any reliable sources on him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The claims [http://www.brandrepublic.com/news/474697/ellis-watson-leave-trinity-mirror-john-menzies/ are true]. [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=Mirror+Group+Newspapers%2C+ellis+watson&cf=all Google News] has a lot of hits too. The article looks really weak for a subject with credible references. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

: And it's a Keep, with some editing required. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

:* Note I've just added references; I didn't know of this guy until this AfD, but this is definitely not a case of A tall tale that has no verifiability. Whether the subject is notable per WP:BIO is debatable, but the nomination statement is incorrect, there were three claims in the article, and it took less than two minutes to verify those through Google news search. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

{{ambox

| type = content

| image = 56px

| text = This article was flagged for rescue at approximately this point in the discussion{{ #if: Drawn Some | by Drawn Some. |.}}}}

  • Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

: SpacemanSpiff gave a source with detailed coverage, and his google news search shows quite a few more, like this one: [http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/news/180641//]. The articles seem to emphasize his unique abilities as an individual and depict him as a powerful and rather charismatic manager--as opposed to just mentioning him in the context of one notable position or another. I'm not quite sure on what grounds you're arguing that he's not notable. Cazort (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep I don't understand why anyone is having trouble finding references, there are plenty of reliable sources providing in-depth coverage and establishing his notablity. I added a couple of them. Drawn Some (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I agree, it was very easy for me to find sources and I found many, and the sources are reliable and have detailed coverage. This seems an extremely clear-cut case to me of a page that could easily be improved. Something being a stub is NOT grounds for deletion, and this seems a classic example of a page that should not have been nominated. Cazort (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Yet another violation of WP:BEFORE. Coverage of this person is in-depth and independent of the topic. Easily passes WP:N and WP:BIO. --Oakshade (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per expansion. Granite thump (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per the obvious notability. I note that this was nominated 2 minutes after creation, and seconded, by an editor about whom I'm fast losing my capacity to assume good faith, 5 minutes later. How could anyone claim to have followed WP:BEFORE in that time? Nominations like this just waste the time of editors who want to discuss articles about which there is room for discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

:* I agree. Nominating an article within 3 minutes of creation might be justified in special cases, such as articles qualifying for speedy deletion, but not in this case. Cazort (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep A good reason to absolutely require WP:BEFORE. DGG (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

: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.