Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Thomas (businessperson)

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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Thomas (businessperson) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

non notable businessman - never head of major company tho on several boards, refs are pr and notices only DGG ( talk ) 03:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no evidence of notability at all here. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as creator. Contrary to DGG's claim in the nomination, Thomas is actually the head (chairman) of two major companies: the FTSE 250-listed Spirent and Clarkson plc; this is clearly stated in the article and backed up by reliable sources. But even more importantly than that, he's received a UK knighthood, which has always been held to meet WP:ANYBIO#1: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor". If that still doesn't convince you, then there's more than enough material to show that he meets the GNG: he's the subject of in-depth coverage (in the form of interviews, profiles or articles about him) in The Telegraph ([1]), The Times ([2]), The Independent ([3]), The Lancashire Telegraph ([4]), and The Register ([5]). This is just from the first page and a half of a Google search. He's also profiled by Bloomberg. Several of these articles and his Bloomberg profile are already cited in the article. On the basis of all of this, I can't see any grounds for deletion at all; indeed, I am struggling to understand why DGG even thought it appropriate to nominate this for AfD. —Noswall59 (talk) 07:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Clear notability as a knight per WP:ANYBIO #1, which a knighthood easily meets. Very, very clear precedent. No knight has ever been deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. WP:ANYBIO #1 is notoriously ambiguous, but it seems clear to me that a knighthood qualifies as "well-known and significant". Although I'm less certain about whether he meets the GNG, it does indeed appear that there's non-trivial coverage in well-regarded newspapers. Putting the two together, I'm satisfied that he's notable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: In addition to the sources mentioned above, there is already sufficient coverage to establish notability in the article itself (e.g. The Lancashire Telegraph or The Daily Telegraph). 15 (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2021 (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.