Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colm Howard-Lloyd

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Colm Howard-Lloyd

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

This chap seems notable in the most part because he's a trustee of Pride London - but beyond that I can't find a great deal about him in reliable sources. Indeed, every mention of him I've yet found is just him being quoted, rather than an article about him. Given that there is a distinct lack of substantial information about him in third party sources, current referencing on this article is shockingly poor, and includes press releases, wordpress blogs, and 'The Times of India', a newspaper well-known for copy and pasting directly from any source it can, including Wikipedia. Most of the references don't even mention Mr Howard-Lloyd. Finally, this article was created by a paid editor, so there's an obvious problem with neutrality from the start. The Cavalry (Message me) 13:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this person was a notable activist during the Age of Consent campaigns. I agree some of the references are poor or missing but the article should be tagged reference or citation needed. --DavidTTTaylor (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, as I see it, is that the references don't at present support the fact that he's notable. If the sources can't be imporved, then we can't prove he's notable. The Cavalry (Message me) 20:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There doesn't seem to be enough independent sources that show this person is notable. Inter rest (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, there's insufficient evidence of notability. Sure, some of the things he's been involved with are notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED. As an aside, the referencing is so terrible - dishonest even - that I'm prompted to check the article creator's other efforts. —SMALL JIM 15:23, 4 November 2011 (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.