Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Langmead (2nd nomination)

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. Or more precisely, not-delete. Redirecting is an available option at usual editorial discretion. Stifle (talk) 10:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after the close: Three of the keep votes below were sockpuppeting on behalf of Bell Pottinger, as a result the article has now been redirected. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Langmead

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

Person with little or no notability outside of his company (which already has an article). Article has been redirected to the company article no less than 3 times, but an SPA keeps reverting this WuhWuzDat 16:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. References provided focus on the businesses and professional affiliations of the subject, rather than the subject himself. Respectfully, Cind.amuse 17:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Article does not read as promotional and the references at first sight look solid. However several are simply to directories of one sort or another, or to articles about another businessman or a firm which tangentially mention Langmead. The only two cites focussing on him are the two rich list entries, which IMO are too brief to support a separate article. Redirect to Natures Way Foods and include info on Langmead there. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 17:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incorrect to say there is a 'lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources'. The sources are the Financial Times, the Sunday Times, Management Today and Press Enterprise. Although it is true that he is well-known because of his company Natures Way Foods, he and not his company was listed in the Sunday Times rich list twice and he and not his company was listed in Management Today's top entrepreneurs listing twice. Since the deletion tag was added, I have entered an additional citation for the Management Today listings. The article fulfils all notibility criteria and as I say, his listings in the Sunday Times and Management Today are about him and not his company. Martinj1973 (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)— Martinj1973 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. I've carried out my own research on Robert Langmead and there is a good argument for keeping this article, mainly due to the number of major newspapers reporting his business achievements. These references don’t just mention Natures Way Foods, they focus on Langmead’s business achievements and entrepreneurship, for which he is highly regarded within UK business circles. Biggleswiki (talk) 14:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having looked at this article, it seems to be well-sourced and it written from a neutral point of view. The article from Management Today, "Britain's Top 100 Entrepreneurs 2007: Family Fortunes", places Robert Langmead at number 44 and establishes his notibility as an entrepreneur. Diginerd84 (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The citation above, in its entireity, reads as follows: "44. DAVID & ROBERT LANGMEAD - Natures Way Foods. As the newest functional food fashion, vitamin and mineral-rich seeds and pulses could take the prepared fresh produce sector by storm. And Natures Way Foods and Langmead Farms are leading the charge. The Langmead family, led by David and Robert, has extensive farming interests in the Chichester area, supplying prepared salads and fresh produce. It counts Tesco, Sainsbury and Morrisons among its customers. Natures Way Foods made £2.8m profit on £72.5m sales in 2004-05." While the source is impeccable for reliability, I just don't feel the content is rich enough to justify an entire article separate from that for the company. WP:BIO says: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. I do feel this citation on its own is trivial - it's hardly an in-depth biography! Whether the other trivial sources, put together with this, are sufficient to confer notability, is a matter for the closing admin! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2011 (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.