Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Denny (professor)

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 CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Denny (professor)

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

The article contains minimal content is the subject is not notable. isfutile:P (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject is notable, awarded major national award - viz: Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion.

...and WP:TROUT user for creating 8 similar AfD's in 7 minutes, clearly without applying WP:BEFORE.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Comment The Keep comment does not respond to the lack of significant third party coverage raised in the AfD. Also, the comment above breaches WP:NPA and is not constructive. The articles submitted to AfD were detailed in another AfD https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nicholas_Bowen&oldid=686191498, by user User:NewYorkActuary due to the similarities in terms of lack of significant third party coverage. Perhaps the article author could attach sources which demonstrate significant third party coverage to satisfy notability. isfutile:P (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google turns up plenty of ref content. Szzuk (talk) 15:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I can't find any reliable third party sources.isfutile:P (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion#The Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion 2010. Receiving the award confers some notability, but the operative guideline here are WP:BLP1E and WP:NOPAGE. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to award - lack of good coverage and the award doesn't mean probable notability. In a similar AfD, some found the award to be good enough, others didn't, that closed as no consensus so it's not really a strong reason for keeping. Other nominations haven't been speedy keep'd simply because of the award so they seem perfectly reasonable. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 18:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Recently added sourced information on his research from The Guardian. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. does not meet WP:PROF (or the GNG) The Guardian item is a blog posting. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's rather a difference between a blog on blogspot and a blog in a national newspaper; I would regard the latter as the digital media equivalent of a column.--Andreas Philopater (talk) 06:20, 30 November 2015 (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.