Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Tamplin

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. The delete side goes into more detail as to why the proffered sources aren't adequate than the keep side does at rebutting that, and some keep !votes do not offer any evidence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Tamplin

Glenn Tamplin (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)

I'm interested to see what, if any, criteria for notability Glenn Tamplin fulfils. Simply being the owner of a football club at Billericay's level, or being an entrepreneur and millionaire, or even attracting the attention that he has for his methods at Billericay, appears not to qualify him under the current guidelines. We'd then need articles for every club owner, every millionaire. I'm aware that there is the odd exception to the rule but I can't see why Tamplin should be one. Montgomery15 (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. None of the refs are about him specifically, he's just mentioned. Szzuk (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He is fairly well known in the business world, article could do with a lot of improvement, buying Billericay FC certainly adds to his reputation especially with the additions of
  WP:GNG easily. Govvy (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 15:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Billericay FC have gained national media attention in the UK and have been included in several viral tweets over the past year and a half, specifically relating to Glenn Tamplin. His influence and notoriety will only grow as the club get promoted and continue to spend cash in their respective division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.134.197 (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His influence and notoriety will only grow as the club get promoted" - see
    WP:CRYSTAL. You have no way of knowing that the team will get promoted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment I will add a few things - aging players dropping into the non-League game is actually very common, as with players like O'Hara whose careers have (so far) been hindered by injuries. So three joining a club at once, although unusual, is no way of assuring the club's owner of his notability. The IP user is right, Billericay Town have gained national media attention - which adds to Billericay's notability, which is why Billericay Town have an article here. Tamplin isn't the only club owner who puts his own money into his club; indeed, the group of owners who don't would be very small. Yes, the cases are rare of such vast amounts of money being invested at Billericay's level - but that in and of itself is no indication that he's notable enough to be here. I would suggest a subsection on the Billericay Town page focusing on his time with the club - but only as much as that. Montgomery15 (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability here. Despite the crap muriel and has been players. Signed - sway4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.67 (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- does not meet
  WP:ANYBIO; coverage is local and / or routine. "... fined £45,000 and ordered to pay £30,789 in court costs" is trivia; best deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comments @
  WP:GNG. So anyone saying he isn't notably isn't following Wiki guidelines, they will need a different argument to delete. Govvy (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep Passes
  The Daily Mail, BBC and ITV. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:35, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - no evidence of notability, fails
  WP:ROUTINE. --Jimbo^[online] 17:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comments @Jimbo online:, I am wondering if you could give more detail of why you feel the article should be deleted. Simply saying there is "no evidence of notability" seems to contradict the use of citations, other than the football transfer citations, I am curious what you feel are the "Routine" parts of the citations. Govvy (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per the multiple sources AlessandroTiandelli333 has provided that show that the subject of the article passes
  WP:GNG. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per AlessandroTiandelli333 has received coverage and Passes
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep passes GNG and the multiple sources speak for the subject. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Big fish in small pond; sources are from that pond and are run-of-the mill stuff which do not establish his notability.. And re his involvement with Billericay FC, notability is not inherited.TheLongTone (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2017 (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.