Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivor Spencer-Thomas

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ivor Spencer-Thomas[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Promotional article. Not finding anything like enough to pass WP:GNG in the citations or anywhere else online or via Google Books etc. Edwardx (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not seeing how it can be a promotional article, given he died 18 years ago! What's it promoting exactly? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The tone, style and lack of sources suggest that it is promotional. Promotional content is much more of an issue for BLPs, but people do sometimes start articles on their ancestors and other dead relatives. It was started in 2007, so subject was only dead for 6 years at that point. The article creator has edited Owen Spencer-Thomas, also up for deletion, who I presume is Ivor's son. Edwardx (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not really promotional then. Just personal interest. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Edwardx (talk) 17:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the promotional tone (or, I guess, we can just call it non-neutral), there simply aren't enough sources for this to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Gargleafg (talk) 01:23, 24 October 2019 (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.