Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Gower (5th nomination)

Andrew Gower

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Andrew Gower
• Articles for deletion/Andrew Gower (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Andrew Gower (3rd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Andrew Gower (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Andrew Gower (5th nomination)

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Andrew Gower (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 businessperson .The references are routine coverage, or placement on a list. It is possible to be notable by being extremely wealthy, but not if it's just 566th in Britain. The previous discussions wer over 112 years ago, when standards were much lower and much more erratic. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." The last three discussions all resulted in Keep and so it is vexatious to try this again. The nomination indicates a lack of understanding of the subject who is not notable just for being especially rich but for being the principal architect and creator of an outstandingly successful MMORPG which was recognised by Guinness as being the world's largest – comparable in size with Wikipedia, with over 200 million accounts. When the nomination talks of low and erratic standards, it should start with itself per WP:SAUCE as it is a blatant failure of WP:BEFORE and contains absurd errors like "112 years". It is clear that the policy WP:ATD applies, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." and the nomination makes no effort to address this. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:40, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete we lack the indepth coverage of him in articles to show an actual passing of GNG. The last deletion discussion was 12 years ago, our inclusion criteria have changed an awful lot since then, so default endorsing the decision of 12 years ago is not advised. The attacks on the editor who nominated this article for deletion are the type of par for the course no holds bar character assinations that are regularly carried on by those who want to keep Wikipedia covering as many marginal people as possible. They need to stop.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete lacking in depth coverage. non notable business person. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete for lacking notability. The latest deletion discussion prior to this was from 2009, and as Johnpacklambert as stated above, our site policies have changed considerably since then regarding the notability guidelines. This person simply lacks enough in-depth coverage to warrant an article. I am also rather disgruntled with how Andrew Davidson chose to use words like "blatant failure" in reference to the nominator, which goes against WP:CIVIL and is inappropriate for this discussion (or any discussion, really). Namcokid47 21:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect The most recent AFD was 11 years ago and it's bad faith to accuse the nominator of disruption and even worse faith to attack the nominator for an obvious typo. Sources provide more coverage of Jagex and so a merge/redirect is appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 00:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)