Content deleted Content added
k |
Malcolmxl5 (talk | contribs) →Carole Bamford: Closed as keep (XFDcloser) |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="boilerplate afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' |
|||
<!--Template:Afd top |
|||
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> |
|||
The result was '''keep'''. There is no support for this proposal. [[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 02:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
===[[:Carole Bamford]]=== |
===[[:Carole Bamford]]=== |
||
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|B}} |
|||
<div class="infobox" style="width:33%">AfDs for this article: |
<div class="infobox" style="width:33%">AfDs for this article: |
||
{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole Bamford}} |
{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole Bamford}} |
||
Line 13: | Line 19: | ||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women|list of Women-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Spiderone|<span style="color: #996600">Spiderone</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Spiderone|<span style="color:brown">(Talk to Spider)</span>]]</sup> 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)</small> |
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Women|list of Women-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Spiderone|<span style="color: #996600">Spiderone</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Spiderone|<span style="color:brown">(Talk to Spider)</span>]]</sup> 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)</small> |
||
*'''Keep''' Terrible pr-job of an article, but she is the founder of a brand that is well-known in the UK, & the sourcing can very easily be improved with stuff like [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/lady-bamford-billionaire-eco-entrepreneur-bringing-wellness/ this] and (not very friendly) [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8782021/JCB-Billionaire-slammed-neighbours-visiting-planning-site-HELICOPTER.html this]. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' Terrible pr-job of an article, but she is the founder of a brand that is well-known in the UK, & the sourcing can very easily be improved with stuff like [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/lady-bamford-billionaire-eco-entrepreneur-bringing-wellness/ this] and (not very friendly) [https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8782021/JCB-Billionaire-slammed-neighbours-visiting-planning-site-HELICOPTER.html this]. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC) |
||
*'''KEEP''', the founder of well known Daylesford Organics should be considered 'notable'.[[User:Rodolph|Rodolph]] ([[User talk:Rodolph|talk]]) 06:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Comment''' Technical question: For companies, there is no [[Wikipedia:INHERITORG|inherited hotability]]. But can people inherit notability from organisations, or does that rule work both ways? I'm not asking about general notability here, but about the specifics of conveying notability from firm to founder. [[Daylesford Organics]] has notably not had its own Wikipedia article created, sourced and deemed notable yet, so perhaps that should take priority. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 07:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Comment''' Hi all, I've had another go at trying to improve it and will continue to do so until it's right and acceptable. Hopefully this has addressed some issues but please feel keep the suggestions coming and I'll get better at this with each recommendation [[User:Duderood|Duderood]] ([[User talk:Duderood|talk]]) 09:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Duderood |
|||
*'''Keep'''. Clearly passes [[WP:SIGCOV]] per the sources presented in the first AFD. Consensus at that discussion was clear that the subject is notable and quality in-depth independent sources exist, but the article itself needed improvement through editing. I can't see any reason to disagree with that assessment. [[WP:AFD is not cleanup]].[[User:4meter4|4meter4]] ([[User talk:4meter4|talk]]) 19:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
*'''KEEP''' - plenty of news exists if you Google her name. I have added a few new citations. [[User:Peter303x|Peter303x]] ([[User talk:Peter303x|talk]]) 02:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC) |
|||
{{clear}} |
|||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's [[Help:Using talk pages|talk page]] or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.''<!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> |
Latest revision as of 02:31, 21 September 2021
- 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. There is no support for this proposal. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
Carole Bamford
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Carole Bamford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has extremely questionable notability and terrible, intermittent and largely primary or press release sourcing. If anything, the notability case for the organic farm discussed in the article seems stronger than that of the owner. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Terrible pr-job of an article, but she is the founder of a brand that is well-known in the UK, & the sourcing can very easily be improved with stuff like this and (not very friendly) this. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- KEEP, the founder of well known Daylesford Organics should be considered 'notable'.Rodolph (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Technical question: For companies, there is no inherited hotability. But can people inherit notability from organisations, or does that rule work both ways? I'm not asking about general notability here, but about the specifics of conveying notability from firm to founder. Daylesford Organics has notably not had its own Wikipedia article created, sourced and deemed notable yet, so perhaps that should take priority. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Hi all, I've had another go at trying to improve it and will continue to do so until it's right and acceptable. Hopefully this has addressed some issues but please feel keep the suggestions coming and I'll get better at this with each recommendation Duderood (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Duderood
- Keep. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources presented in the first AFD. Consensus at that discussion was clear that the subject is notable and quality in-depth independent sources exist, but the article itself needed improvement through editing. I can't see any reason to disagree with that assessment. WP:AFD is not cleanup.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- KEEP - plenty of news exists if you Google her name. I have added a few new citations. Peter303x (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2021 (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.