In this article, we will explore the impact of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Mead on our current society.
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Mead has proven to be a topic of great relevance and interest to a wide audience, since its influence extends to various aspects of daily life. Over time,
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Mead has played a critical role in the evolution of our culture, the way we relate to others, and the development of technology. Through detailed analysis, we will examine how
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Mead has shaped our perception of the world and how its presence continues to affect our lives today. This study will allow us to better understand the importance and scope of
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Mead in the contemporary world.
- 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. (NPASR) (non-admin closure) Rcsprinter123 (confer) @ 16:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Scott Mead (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 can't find any substantial coverage of the subject in RS. The article states he is a photographer but this coverage in the low-quality Evening Standard was the best I could find. (Note that a different Scott Mead is more notable as a photographer ). Similarly I can only find brief mentions of his career at Goldman Sachs e.g. in The FT or in relation to his PA stealing from him . Unless there are sources that I haven't been able to find WP:BIO isn't met. SmartSE (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 03:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: SmartSE's nomination is excellent and I can't see any fault in it. The only reason I have for hesitating to agree with a call for deletion is a feeling that somebody might wonder just who are these somewhat shadowy names that pop up as trustees of The Photographers' Gallery, etc. Because the author of the excellent Anatomy of Britain is now dead, publication of Son of Who Runs This Place? The Anatomy of Britain a Bit Further into the 21st Century seems unlikely. I'm not certain that Wikipedia should be doing this job, but I'd be reassured if I knew that some website somewhere was doing it. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Hi SmartSE and Hoary,I edited this entry in the past, and saw it's considered for deletion now for being written in a promotional style etc. So I made some edits to try to improve it. Can you let me know what you think please? BenSalo (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- The promotional tone is pretty irrelevant if he isn't notable, which is what this discussion is about. As the note I left on your talk page notes, if you are being paid to edit the article then you must disclose this, including who your employer is. SmartSE (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- 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.