Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neil Renilson

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Renilson‎

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

Article about a businessman who, despite having won an award appears entirely non-notable Exploding Boy (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I created the article because I thought we had enough sources. There are 13 currently in it, of which four aren't really about him. Of the other nine, we have: two local and two national news stories about his retirement ([1], [2], [3] and one offline from Buses Magazine); two news stories relating to other events, one before and one after ([4] and [5]); a long interview and biography in a local paper ([6]); an interview and retrospective in an industry journal ([7]); and a runner-up position in a national award ([8]). This feels like enough for, among others, WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. I could be wrong, but it would take a strict interpretation to negate all that coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sourcing to estabish notability. WP tends to have a prejudice against business people, rather than artists and scholars. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure "sourcing" is really enough. Just because someone has been in the papers doesn't make them notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be nice it that was really how it worked here. As it is a singer or actor gets an article just because of reviews of their work. Why shouldn't a business person get one for news reporting on his or her business activities?Steve Dufour (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A singer or actor must be notable enough to to get an article, just like a business person. We don't have articles on every minor performer, but we do have articles on Vera Lynn and Elizabeth Taylor. Similarly, we have articles on notable business people like Richard Branson and Bill Gates. I doubt we have many singer/actor articles that are included on the basis of a few stories in small papers and industry publications and the fact that the company they worked for once got an award, which appears to be the basis of the argument for Neil Renilson's notability. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are many articles on minor artists and bands, or on individual songs by them. These make up a great part of the Afd list every day.Steve Dufour (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you actually arguing that because some editors create unencyclopedic articles which go unnoticed that this unencyclopedic article should be allowed to remain? Do you really believe that this person is notable enough that one would expect to find an article about him in an encyclopedia? Exploding Boy (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No new articles about bands and singer go unnoticed - at least not when I am on duty. ;) However, what we do or don't do on other pages is not a criterion fur judging an AfD - we are guided by policy, and even that is not written in stone.--Kudpung (talk) 04:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of any biographical article needs to have long term historical notability, especially given our concerns about biographies of living people. This is a businessman who's operated a number of tour bus companies. There is no "bias" against businesses or businesspeople, but we do insist that they have done something that history is going to remember them for. There's no indication in the article that this person meets that standard. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...apart from all the coverage that he's received in reliable sources. And the award. "Long term historical notability" isn't part of WP:BLP anyway, so shouldn't be used as a criterion for notability in this case anyway. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely there's more to deciding who is and isn't worthy of having an article about them in an encyclopedia than counting how many times they've been mentioned in the papers. There's no doubt he's been successful in his career, but that fact doesn't make him encyclopedic. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing subjective about it; the notability here appears to be clearly established by current Wikipedia policy; there's really nothing much to debate and this AfD is most likely erronious.
Keep - Notability for anybody, whether they be an entertainer or a business person is established with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. The coverage is from more than just community papers, it's the Scotsman and the BBC publishing articles specifically about Neil Renilson's retirement. That indicates that he is noted; the very definition of notability here on Wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - An exceptionally well written, well researched, and well referenced article. The refs pass WP:RS, and WP:V muster, and their is no doubt whatsoever of the subject meeting the criteria in our policies on notability. A bit longer, and with a few tweaks this article could be a GA. --Kudpung (talk) 04:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough sourcing to estabish notability. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable per the numerous citations. And there certainly is a systemic prejudice against business topics on Wikipedia - I see it here regularly. Predictions regarding the long-term are irrelevant per WP:CRYSTAL. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:37, 28 August 2010 (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.