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 CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Allan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The article contains minimal content and 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 nominator for creating 8 similar AfD's in 7 minutes, clearly without applying WP:BEFORE.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:26, 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) 17:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion#The Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion 2010. Even though the Queen's Award does confer some notability, WP:BLP1E and WP:NOPAGE need to be considered. If not for the Queen's Award, it is extremely unlikely that this article could ever pass the general notability guidelines. As for the subject's accomplishments after receiving the award, the sourced statements tell us only that he was a chairman of a museum and a member of a Chamber of Commerce. There is not enough here to merit a stand-alone article and a redirect is appropriate. In this regard, I note that the article Queen's Award for Enterprise Promotion (2010) already exists as a redirect to the article on the Queen's Award. Perhaps the better solution is to expand that redirect article into an article on all of that year's awardees, where brief biographical sketches on each awardee can be included. NewYorkActuary (talk) 21:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - 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) 17:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note there is coverage sufficient to meet GNG. For example: James Williamson (30 April 2014). "Chamber turn to Allan as new president takes reins".. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Keep. Clearly a big fish in however small a pond Scottish property development might be. Press coverage of his activities *readily available on the internet* spans the period 2010-2015 in various outlets. I've also seen mentions of him as FRSA but can't find confirmation of this from independent reliable sources freely available online. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC) (editing)[reply]

• Delete. Consensus is that the award does not provide sufficient evidence for notability. Makes no sense to redirect to the award article, for it should contain only a list of the notable people who have received the award. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 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.