Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Boyle

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 delete. Sourcing is not of a significant enough nature to verify notability. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Boyle

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

Non-notable bio. Full of advertisement and POV. No citation. I can find in google news search either. Mar11 (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Mar11 (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this person is as significant as the article claims, there would be some sources out there. There aren't. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are awards mentioned on the page - all but one accolade currently unsourced, but that hints to me that if good research is done, that might be verifiable. Sources like this good for that: [1]. Also some other nice coverage online, first a full-length feature in the BBC [2], and some more minor coverage uncovered in a few minutes of google searching: [3], [4], [5], etc. Yvarta (talk) 17:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- The few minor awards might just make him notable, but the article has the feel of ADVERT. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are not good enough and it very clear is all about promoting the subject. We require sources to be about the subject - tangential mentions in the context of something else are not useful as notability is not inherited.

BBC This is not a "profile" about Simon Boyle. The article is about Unilever's Innovation Centre and the subject happened to be the one giving the journalist a tour.
bighospitality.co.uk Passing mention about an award of doubtful notability.
Telegraphy restaurant review - A passing mention. In any case, restaurant reviews are not useful.
Bigissue.com Passing mention in the context of a charity and the article seems to have been sourced to a press release by the charity itself
Timeout.com blog Sorry, but this is a blog and not useful for notability.
Guardian blog Similar to above. Although Guardian is a reliable source, the blogs are not so much secondary coverage as opinion of the posters. This post seems to be sourced to primary sources.

Overall, I guess this is WP:TOOSOON. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think it meets the first criterion of WP:ANYBIO. I see Boyle as notable for two main accomplishments: the People's Choice Award and being on the editorial board of a notable magazine. Icebob99 (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2016 (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.