- 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 no consensus. North America 1000 01:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Karen Arnold
- Karen Arnold ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet GNG. Article creator has a history of inserting sources which don't back up GNG claims. isfutile:P ( talk) 00:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- GNG does not require that there are sources in the article that back up GNG claims. Having said that, when I inserted the source it did back up both GNG and WP:ANYBIO. It is now a dead link. If you choose to replace it with a better link, that is fine. Until then removing the dead link, then prodding the article under BLP is an abuse of the system.
- It would be useful if you could share the sources you found for Karen Arnold while you were making this nomination.
- Thank you. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 00:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC).
- Comment That's not how it works and the 'ego' and 'condescending attitude' isn't appeciated or appropriate. The onus is on the article creator to provide sources to back up claims. There are no sources to suggest this person won an award, and the link did not suggest anything of the sort when it was inserted. In fact the link does not even feature the person in questions name. Isn't inserting bogus sources an abuse of the system? As for WP:ANYBIO, until it can be proven that this person won an award which confers notabity, this assertion is pie in the sky. Advice - the article creator needs to back up claims with reliable sources, as per GNG and WP:BLP.
isfutile:P (
talk) 00:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Please read
WP:BEFORE. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 01:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC).
- Please read
WP:BEFORE. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 01:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC).
- Keep - Appears to satisfy the guidelines.-- Ykraps ( talk) 15:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. The nominator is making it increasingly difficult to assume good faith. This is looking more and more like harassment of the article creator, particularly with the repeated and tendentious characterization of a deadlink as a "bogus source", and the repeated insinuation that somebody winning an award for promoting enterprise should be treated as a "contentious claim" per WP:BLP. -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 18:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- It is in fact possible to see
what the dead link used to look like, and that it once provided a link to a pdf listing previous Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion winners. Whoever it was that called this link "bogus" owes somebody an apology. While it is regrettable that the list of winners is not archived, there is an alternative source for the 2005–2010 recipients here:
http://www.enterprisepromotion.org/queensawards.htm. Whoever removed the previous link might like to replace it with this one. --
Andreas Philopater (
talk) 19:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Your link:
- It is in fact possible to see
what the dead link used to look like, and that it once provided a link to a pdf listing previous Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion winners. Whoever it was that called this link "bogus" owes somebody an apology. While it is regrettable that the list of winners is not archived, there is an alternative source for the 2005–2010 recipients here:
http://www.enterprisepromotion.org/queensawards.htm. Whoever removed the previous link might like to replace it with this one. --
Andreas Philopater (
talk) 19:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
what the dead link used to look like does not feature any mention of Karen Arnold, in the past or present. How is it relevant? isfutile:P ( talk) 20:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- It contains the words "Download a list of the 2011 and previous recipients of The QAEP (PDF, 198K) - Opens in a new window." That list has not been archived, but assuming good faith means not accusing other editors of adding "bogus" or "false" links, when the link they provided in 2010 still, in 2011, led to a downloadable pdf list of recipients. You can *very* easily confirm the information from other sources (such as the one I gave you, but the
London Gazette might also be an option) rather than remove the information while adding denigratory edit summaries. --
Andreas Philopater (
talk) 22:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
- "That list has not been archived". Precisely why it should be challenged under
WP:BLP. If you have good citation, by all means add it, but please don't add a link which isn't relevant to the article, and according to all available evidence, never was relevant to the article.
isfutile:P (
talk) 16:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- The link was added in 2010, when it looked very different; you are removing it with edit summaries that unreasonably assume bad faith. You are removing the information sourced to the link as though it were controversial information (which it isn't). You could very easily leave the information and add new sources for it, but instead you are removing it under false pretences (that the source was fraudulent; that the information is controversial). That's why I reverted you the first time I saw you doing it.
Now you're either trolling, or you've got so caught up in your zeal for deleting these articles that you can't tell how troll-like your behaviour is becoming. Either way,I will not be drawn into an edit war on it, and I will not communicate with you further on this matter. -- Andreas Philopater
- The link was added in 2010, when it looked very different; you are removing it with edit summaries that unreasonably assume bad faith. You are removing the information sourced to the link as though it were controversial information (which it isn't). You could very easily leave the information and add new sources for it, but instead you are removing it under false pretences (that the source was fraudulent; that the information is controversial). That's why I reverted you the first time I saw you doing it.
- "That list has not been archived". Precisely why it should be challenged under
WP:BLP. If you have good citation, by all means add it, but please don't add a link which isn't relevant to the article, and according to all available evidence, never was relevant to the article.
isfutile:P (
talk) 16:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
- It contains the words "Download a list of the 2011 and previous recipients of The QAEP (PDF, 198K) - Opens in a new window." That list has not been archived, but assuming good faith means not accusing other editors of adding "bogus" or "false" links, when the link they provided in 2010 still, in 2011, led to a downloadable pdf list of recipients. You can *very* easily confirm the information from other sources (such as the one I gave you, but the
London Gazette might also be an option) rather than remove the information while adding denigratory edit summaries. --
Andreas Philopater (
talk) 22:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
( talk) 21:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC) (redacted -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 11:59, 27 November 2015 (UTC))
- link removal was correct for reasons already given. isfutile:P ( talk) 16:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK 20:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Human3015 TALK 20:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete for now as I see how this would be keepable but I'm simply not seeing much convincingly better aside from some usual news mentions from my searches. If better is made, I would be willing to go weak keep but I'm not entirely convinced at this time. Feel free to draft and userfy until better is made, SwisterTwister talk 06:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. There are a few refs in the article but they have no depth, indicating she isn't notable. Szzuk ( talk) 16:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete. can't see enough news mentions or refs which would lead reasonable person to think she is notable. Totolatin ( talk) 20:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Sockpuppet account of User:Tonyinman, known as futile. R. F. 2015-11-30Z01:18
- Keep - As Rich Farmbrough points out she meets both WP:ANYBIO and through sufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources WP:BASIC. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Adequate coverage by enough sources to establish notability per WP:GNG. Montanabw (talk) 07:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- 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.