Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Cobb

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.  Sandstein  10:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cobb

Chris Cobb (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)

Fails to meet

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (
  ^Notify_Online 22:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Several hours before this AfD was posted, Mr. Cobb was cited in this article [1]. He also turns up in this mix of articles: [2]. This Wikipedia article needs better referencing, but the subject meets
  WP:BIO requirements. And I should congratulate the nominator on mastering the intricacies of the AfD process on his very first edit on Wikipedia! And Adoil Descended (talk) 22:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 22:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 22:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

talk to me 22:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. Seems to satisfy
  WP:GNG but I am open to argument. I also doubt the bona fides of the nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Comment A spokesperson would be often named in media stories. That does not necessarily render them notable. Dansmith1990 (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a spokesperson: he's a senior executive. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,

SarahStierch (talk) 00:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete He appears occasionally in some press, but, I don't believe he passes our general notability guidelines.
  SarahStierch (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- He has clearly been a senior person in a series of academic institutions, but on the administrative side. London University is an unusual body since it operates through a series of colleges that are almost independent universities. I suspect that there are relatively few senior staff in the university itself, as opposed to its colleges. This may suggest that he has an importance greater than implied by his title. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2013 (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.