Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oliver Cookson

: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. Overall, there's disagreement herein about whether or not the depth of coverage in sources is significant enough to qualify an article about the subject. There is no consensus herein at this time for one particular action regarding the article. NorthAmerica1000 17:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

=[[Oliver Cookson]]=

:{{la|Oliver Cookson}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Oliver_Cookson Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Oliver Cookson}})

He has a lot of money. Is that it?

This is yet another paid article by {{u|G2003}}. As such, and with notability based on one business (his nett worth is claimed to be a third of the entire claimed turnover, which is an interesting level of return!) does it belong here? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep, on the basis of major profile articles in major national newspapers. There may be scope to cut some of the flab from the article, but Cookson meets WP:GNG in my view. Sionk (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete, I don't think this rises to the level of "significant" coverage. As is the case with most paid editing, if they were notable enough someone would be interested enough to do it for free. --Adam in MO Talk 20:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Keep I found [http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/678994-court-battle-for-the-hut-and-cookson-over-myprotein-deal.html this news article] which is more than just a passing mention. As Sionk pointed out above, there are profiles in major newspapers like The Times and the Manchester Evening News, so the article defiantly meets WP:GNG. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 10:14, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete major articles are normally notable, but the article sources simply advertise who he is not what is notable about him--Mevagiss (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

::That's the very essence of general notability, someone can be widely known without necessarily having major achievements in one particular thing. Sionk (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2014 (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.