Talk:List of The Apprentice candidates (UK)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject The Apprentice UK (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon The WikiProject Apprentice UK aims to improve articles relating to The Apprentice UK, and List of The Apprentice candidates (UK) has been identified as one of these articles. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Business (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Series 3 Candidates[edit]

This sounds like it was copied from somewhere... probably the BBC website. Cannot copy and paste on wikipedia! Goldbringer 20:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. It was a copyright violation from [1] and I have thus removed it. UkPaolo/talk 19:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to like put the picture of the candidates with their name 17:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Including screenshots for Series Three[edit]

Would uploading screenshots from series three (like those already present in series one and two) be fair use? The reason I ask is that there would then be six screenshots in the article - the fair use covers a "limited number" of screenshots. I am aware that in articles such as List of Big Brother 2006 housemates (UK) (where there were 22 images, one of each housemate) the screenshots were removed. However, this list features 4 different series, so does fair use take that into account? Seaserpent85 21:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just use the promotional photos which include each and every candidate, as used on the series articles? I'll make that change now, if anyone has any objections-please speak now (or forever hold your peace :-D). Happy editing! Dalejenkins 14:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted your changes Dale - what is the point in having images in a list of candidates if you can't make out who is who. So far no one has raised an issue with the screenshots, so there's no need to change unless a problem is identified. Seaserpent85 16:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Didn't you just raise an issue with the screenshots? Suerly it's better to have all or half? Dalejenkins 16:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Not an issue, more just clarification - these images are allowed under fair use. It is justifiable to have 2 screenshots from each series, for identification of the content (the candidates). I don't have anything against having all the candidates in one image, it's just that the images we have aren't all suitable for identifying each candidate (particularly series two). Seaserpent85 16:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of the Michelle Dewberry photo[edit]

Does anyone else think that the Michelle and Sir Alan photo should not be at the top of the page, as this is not really the focus of the article. Maybe a picture of Sir Alan or the show logo? Dalejenkins 16:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not understanding your point of view at all. Surely a picture of a notable Apprentice candidate is exactly what is needed in the lead of such a list? Look at any other lists, they will generally include such an image (a notable example). Sir Alan isn't a candidate, why would he be in a list of candidates? And what do you mean by "this is not really the focus of the article"?? Seaserpent85 16:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Should the page be Semi-protected?[edit]

Many IP Address users are coming on and adding rumours, unsourced statements and original research. I think the page should be semi-protected, anyone agree? Thanks. Dalejenkins 19:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. A lot of what is being added is useful and is citeable. The problem is that there is a lack of info being added by anyone other than unregistered users... semi-protection will just freeze the article in its unfished state.Seaserpent85 00:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nargis Ara paragraph is confusing[edit]

"It has since been revealed by contestant Alexa Tilley that the team were given no choice in this matter, this fact was not revealed to the television audience." Given no choice about what? Using cats for the calendar?

Unfortunately a lot of the bios on this page haven't been touched for ages. If you see something that is unverifiable, please feel free to remove it! Likewise, if you can improve it and find sources that would be great too! Seaserpent85 16:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Kristina and Simon-Seperate articles[edit]

Following in our tradition, and most other Reality TV article's traditions, of creating new pages for the winner and the runner up of a RTV programme (see Tim Campbell and Saira Khan and Michelle Dewberry and Ruth Badger), would anyone like to make a start on Kristina Grimes and Simon Ambrose? Dalejenkins 08:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I'll make a start on Kristina. However, if it turns out that the runner-up fades into obscurity, there's no need to have an article just because they were the runner-up. Seaserpent85 09:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Dalejenkins 09:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I Think there should be a seperate article, as Kristina has a good quality article, and so should Simon whether or not he remains in the public eye for long, as he competed, and played a major part in a nationwide BBC programme. Olz06 19:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to make one Oz, it's only because no one has had time to make one rather than it not being a worthwhile article! Seaserpent85 13:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Definitely, if Katie and Kristina have one then Simon should too (Jackofalltradesmasterofnone 13:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC))


Looking at what is used on the American counterpart of this page-[2]-I was wondering if we should do something like this, with the candidates photos. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 10:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the image on the US version would be a candidate for deletion if it were actually viewed often enough! Unfortunately, I don't think there's a way we could it and keep to the screenshot guidelines. Seaserpent85 19:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

3 seperate articles[edit]

Do you think we should do this, 1 for each series. If 16 more candidates do series 4, the article will be huge. Also, the articles will be easier to improve if they are seperate. Thoughts? Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 19:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm 2 minds - I don't really mind either way to be honest.
  • Pros of splitting
    • Increased readability
    • Would give further context to each series
  • Cons of splitting
    • 3 articles to maintain instead of 1
    • Decreased usability if someone is looking for a candidate but can't remember which series.
So, overall I'd be inclined to say no to splitting, I don't think it's too long yet. However, when it comes to the fourth series then it will definitely need splitting. Seaserpent85 19:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

James Max - separate article or not[edit]

There is a dispute over the inclusion of the article James Max. It has been redirected to the item within this article a few tiems, but these have been consistently reverted by User:Butlermonkey. I favour the redirect, but would prefer to establish what consensus there is on this matter first. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now nominated James Max for deletion at AfD Fritzpoll (talk) 13:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

'Dress Sense'[edit]

Surely it's not really necessary for references to whether a contestants 'dress sense' has been critised or not. After all this is a business show not part of the Next Top Model franchise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps as a subject on its own, then maybe not but I think it does reflect how the general media, and maybe the viewers, are taking a much deeper interest in the program. Helping to build a 'bigger picture' of the program and its influence maybe? ( (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC))
I have to agree - it would be fair enough if it's referenced by the programme, but what the Daily Mail thinks doesn't seem notable or relevant, nor can it be taken as a reliable source; the Daily Mail criticises all sorts of people. We do at least have a reference for a counter-point of view to this however. Mdwh (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Lee McQueen Gay?[edit]

In episode 9, Lee mutters something about not liking Lucinda's idea about a TV advert that plays on homosexuality. I cannot work out if Lee says "Well I'm a gay man so I wouldn't buy it" or "If I was a gay man...". Did anyone else pick up on this? Supereddy (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Then why is Nicola Jellyman in the press I'll not know.--Andrzejestrować ZP Pbjornovich (talk) (contributions) (email) 17:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Alex really 24?[edit]

If so, how was he born in 1982? I heard this DOB mentioned on The Apprentice: Final Four special recently also. So what age is he?

I think this is due to the filming taking place in September/October 2007, they've quoted his age as that at the time of filming. If he was born in 1982, then he must have turned 25 at the end of last year. Seaserpent85 23:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Sophocles[edit]

I thought it was harsh that what is said about Michael about his escort work whilst at University was unsourced -- indeed, is this libelous? I have tried to look for an appropriate source, but the Daily Mail (tabloid) was the best I could find... FSHero (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Raef Bjayou[edit]

Due to the fact he is continuing to work in television making him more notable, I suggest this section be split into a new article. Million_Moments (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Here here. Definite future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I also agree XSAFX (talk) 13:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OK I will preform the split. Million_Moments (talk) 12:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Simon Smith: Army career[edit]

The article currently reads:

Simon Smith is a senior satellite television engineer who despite nine years service in the Royal Artillery and a self-avowed IQ of 170 [62] only reached the most junior Non-Commissioned Officer rank of Lance Bombadier; a rank that, in his own words, carried "massive responsibility" [63]. He specialised as a surveyor.[64]

I am not at all familiar with the Army, but I'm also not sure whether the author of these words is either. It suggests that there is something surprising about a soldier with nine years' service and an IQ of 170 "only" reaching the rank of Lance Bombadier. The rank is equivalent to Lance Corporal (the terminology varies according to regiment). I remember watching a TV documentary about new recruits to the British Army. One recruit was asked by an officer what rank he hoped to reach and he replied, "Corporal. Full Corporal." The suggestion was that reaching this rank would be a really considerable achievement. According to the Army careers website the next rank on, Bombadier (=Corporal) would typically take six to eight years to reach. He certainly wouldn't have become a Sergeant within nine years. My guess is that to be a Lance Bombadier after nine years is not at all unusual, and he had, after all, chosen a specialised trade, and I suppose that must involve some kind of trade-off between specialization and promotion, though I'm willing to be told that I'm wrong. Further, his IQ probably has little to do with his career success. I'm sure it has more to do with his level of formal education. There is a hint that the author thinks that the rank of Lance Bombadier does not actually carry the massive responsibility that he claimed. Surely the slightest degree of extra responsibility in the Armed Forces carries with it a massive responsibility. In fact, it's been taken out of context. He never said that being a Lance Bombadier carried massive responsibility, but that just being in the Army did. And is it necessary to point out that Lance Bombadier is the most junior NCO rank in the RA? Can the reader not work this out for him or herself? It just looks like another way of showing that Simon was exaggerating his own importance and that his military career had been something of a failure. I would suggest that it might be better to rewrite this information thus:

Simon Smith is a senior satellite television engineer. He served for nine years in the Royal Artillery, specialising as a surveyor[64] and reaching the rank of Lance Bombadier. He contrasted the "massive responsibility" of his job in the Army with a feeling of "being a nobody" when he left it.[63] He states that his IQ is 170.[62]

The footnote numbers would change, of course. If nobody objects, I'll make the necessary changes.--Oxonian2006 (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Dates of birth and other stale information[edit]

In some of these biogs it's very difficult to tell whether statements were written in the present tense at the time of the show (taken from the publicity material released at the time) and have never since been maintained, or whether they're supposed to be maintained and up-to-date. For example:

  • "Adele Lock is a 29-year-old salon owner from Mere in Lancashire."
  • "Ben Leary, 29, is the owner of a headhunting firm."
  • "Nargis Ara has an honours degree in pharmacy and is a PhD student."


I think we need to try to make "as of" dates clearer in cases such as these. Cumbersome though it may seem, I also think we need to somehow alert readers to the "as of" date for people's ages at the point the ages are given. The note at the top of the page is too distant and easily missed. It's too easy for someone browsing to misinterpret an age as current age, and even update it if it's "wrong". Matt 00:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Candidates' info[edit]

Ben Clarke is now at Durham University Business School, residing at St Aidan's college. He had Chinese for tea on 8th October 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

There are a couple of problems with copying and pasting text from the publicity blurb released about the candidates. The first is the tendency for it to include hyperbolic and unencyclopedic material such as "With an impressive musical history...", "No stranger to confidence, Mona states...", "Ambitious and gutsy, Kate is...", "Kimberly's entrepreneurial spirit blossomed at an early age", etc. -- quite probably on the flimsy basis that the candidates (or producers on their behalf) have self-described themselves in this way. Really we should everywhere say "describes him/herself as ..." or use direct quotes (which, to be fair, is already done in a number of places, but not all).

The second is the one I mentioned above: this "as of the date of the show" material eventually gets sporadically augmented with post-show information, until the point is reached some way down the line when it's completely unclear which present-tense information has been maintained and which is potentially years out of date.

To solve both these problems in one hit, I wonder if we can get away with quoting verbatim the time-of-show publicity blurb, making it clear that it is a quote. Then this will for all time be clearly separated from later information, and all the hype and other tosh won't look so inappropriate. Matt (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC).

Changed the bit about Phil being expelled from St. Leonard's, absolute nonsense as he went to Tudhoe Grange, he was in the year below me. Davidjsuk (talk) 19:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Table at the top[edit]

That navbox table at the top has to be one of the most godawful tables of contents I've seen in a long time. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Kate - Task Wins[edit]

I dont know where anyone got the information that Kate has equalled the record for most tasks won, but she really really hasnt. In fact, Kate's record is nowhere near 8-1. Kate's record is as follows.

Week 1: (Ignite) LOST
Week 2: (Ignite) WON
Week 3: (Empire) LOST
Week 4: (Empire) LOST
Week 5: (Empire, PM) WON
Week 6: (Ignite) WON
Week 7: (Ignite, BR) LOST
Week 8: (Ignite) WON
Week 9: (Ignite) WON

Record: 5-4 to wins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyleofark (talkcontribs) 17:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit request from Natters1989, 12 October 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please could you change the entry on Claire Young to the below. This is her updated biog.

Extended content

Claire Young[edit]

Claire Young, 31, is the straight talking, no-nonsense business woman who is well known for reaching the final of series 4 of BBC1’s The Apprentice (2008) watched by over 11 million viewers. Since then she has worked non-stop setting up numerous business ventures. She is also passionate about promoting entrepreneurship and enterprise to our younger generation.

She works ‘hands on’ in schools, and across multiple government organisations, helping students to raise aspirations, take off the blinkers and think big! She supports ‘Backing Young Britain’ and has met with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Now a successful entrepreneur she has a non-business background and hopes that her story will motivate others to realise that with hard work, drive and determination anything is possible.

The latest of Claire’s business initiatives is on an online service, [School Speakers]. [School Speakers] works with the best speakers in the country to give students a taste of real life, raise aspirations and offer workplace skills. The service provides Primary, Secondary, Academies and Colleges with an easy route to secure quality speakers, for subjects across the curriculum including; business & enterprise, science & humanities, creative & arts, PHSCE, SEAL, gifted & talented and personal development.

A further social Enterprise backed by Claire is [Girls out Loud] which works with 13-18 year old girls, helping to raise their aspirations. The organisation facilitates intervention programmes in schools from a one day ‘Discovery Day’ to a 3 months ‘Stardom Journey’. [Girls out Loud] is also piloting a national mentor scheme called [Big Sister], providing teens with much needed support and guidance. Claire is also a Mentor to [Young Apprentice Ambassadors], heading up a group of 30 Young Ambassadors, all chosen for their expertise, ambition and success.

A regular presenter for GMTV; Claire has discussed business, employment & redundancy issues on Sky News and ITN; has become an established public speaker and even started writing her own book. Claire writes a weekly newspaper column and contributes to a number of magazines.

She is much fitter and healthier having shed 3.8 stones to reach a healthy weight. Claire is an ambassador for posture enhancing [MBT trainers] and appears in their recent print campaign.

Schooled in Wakefield and after graduating from Bristol University Claire accelerated up the career ladder, working for beauty giant L’Oreal in Marketing, for Colgate Palmolive in Sales and in Retail Buying for global health and beauty group AS Watson.

Natters1989 (talk) 14:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: This is a copyright violation of this website. For legal reasons, copyrighted material cannot be used on Wikipedia without permission of the copyright holder. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Mark Shaw[edit]

Is it me or does the fact that Kevin Mark Shaw's entry from series 4 has his website address mentioned twice reek of advertising? Can someone please remove it? Dj.antix (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sara Dhada (series 4)[edit]

Is there a reason why her bio is missing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Split into separate lists[edit]

This list is becoming too long - in the edit tab there is a message: "This page is 128 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size. " A split has been suggested before (see the "3 seperate articles" discussion above), but that was when the page length was only 38 kilobytes. The table of contents can stay so that all contestants are linked directly from this page. Peter E. James (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources / copyright[edit]

Have all the copyright issues been resolved? Has all the material that was copied and pasted been removed? Can the template be removed now?

Also, the references aren't sufficient in some cases. For example, the only reference given for Ben Leary doesn't contain all the information given about him. Where did the rest of the information come from? —D'Ranged 1 talk 05:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

New articles[edit]

This long article has been split into separate articles for each season. —D'Ranged 1 talk 14:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

New candidates[edit]

Is anyone going to make a page for the new candidates from Series 13 or what?

-- (talk) 22:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Like this, you mean? ‑ Iridescent 22:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
No, not like that. Like this -- (talk) 21:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)