Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carole Bamford (2nd nomination)

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. There is no support for this proposal. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Carole Bamford

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

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

This article has extremely questionable notability and terrible, intermittent and largely primary or press release sourcing. If anything, the notability case for the organic farm discussed in the article seems stronger than that of the owner. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:14, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Terrible pr-job of an article, but she is the founder of a brand that is well-known in the UK, & the sourcing can very easily be improved with stuff like this and (not very friendly) this. Johnbod (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, the founder of well known Daylesford Organics should be considered 'notable'.Rodolph (talk) 06:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Technical question: For companies, there is no inherited hotability. But can people inherit notability from organisations, or does that rule work both ways? I'm not asking about general notability here, but about the specifics of conveying notability from firm to founder. Daylesford Organics has notably not had its own Wikipedia article created, sourced and deemed notable yet, so perhaps that should take priority. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi all, I've had another go at trying to improve it and will continue to do so until it's right and acceptable. Hopefully this has addressed some issues but please feel keep the suggestions coming and I'll get better at this with each recommendation Duderood (talk) 09:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC) Duderood[reply]

Keep. Clearly passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources presented in the first AFD. Consensus at that discussion was clear that the subject is notable and quality in-depth independent sources exist, but the article itself needed improvement through editing. I can't see any reason to disagree with that assessment. WP:AFD is not cleanup.4meter4 (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - plenty of news exists if you Google her name. I have added a few new citations. Peter303x (talk) 02:00, 21 September 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.