Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Thurlow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, default to keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Thurlow

Tom Thurlow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Vanity article about an essentially non-notable teenager. Already deleted once as an uncontested prod. -- RHaworth 19:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment the original author of the article removed "Already deleted once as an uncontested prod." from the above nom. The Rambling Man 19:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable and pure vanity. The Rambling Man 19:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, meets WP:BIO. Google News Archives confirms coverage by several newspapers including The Mirror (UK-wide). (All are behind paywalls, though.) Not too many teenagers start successful companies. --Dhartung | Talk 20:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep regardless of 'vanity' concerns it clearly satisfies WP:BIO - the sources are right there in the article. The article needs some serious de-POVing, but I genuinely don't understand how anyone can say non-notable based on the press articles referenced in the article itself - feel free to enlighten me. CiaranG 00:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep, as far as one can tell on the surface it conforms WP:BIO, yet there is the issue of non-encyclopedic content and WP:NPOV Alf photoman 00:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - As far as I'm concerned the glouestershire echo is not a notable source. The articles suggested notable soures just wikilink to the sources title RyanPostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 01:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - Gloucestershire Echo is the daily local newspaper for Gloucestershire. It is a fully professional operation, and meets WP:RS with ease.Eludium-q36 11:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Article asserts clear notability. Needs a clean-up, though. Eludium-q36 11:45, 14 January 2007 (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.