Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Seddon

Joe Seddon

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Joe Seddon (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)

Does not meet WP:GNG, declined 5 times at AfC and ultimately rejected only for the initial editor to move it to mainspace anyway. While the subject has been interviewed or asked to give college application advice in reliable publications, there doesn't appear to be any independent and significant coverage of the subject himself in reliable sources. Perhaps the projects that he is affiliated with, such as Access Oxbridge or Zero Gravity, are notable _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. No indication of passing WP:GNG.Jessicahelen (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Keep article in mainspace. The subject passes WP:GNG. He has been covered across a number of British and international broadsheet newspapers. Just today he was featured in an article in The Times - https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/app-gives-poor-pupils-a-mentor-to-guide-them-into-top-universities-w5mx5877f. The sources referenced are reliable and independent of the subject as they have all been written by independent journalists with no verifiable relation to the subject. Regarding Rosguill's point on whether it is the subject or his projects which are notable, an examination of the articles reveals that the subject is the overwhelming focus. This can be seen from both the headlines of the articles and the references to his name in the body copy vis-a-vis the name of his projects.Doogierev (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  That article is paywalled so I can't review it directly; based on the first few paragraphs that I can see, it could go either way as far as significant coverage. I was, however, able to thoroughly check every other citation, and do not believe that they have GNG-qualifying coverage. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

  Now I can see where the contention lies. A number of the subject's references are paywalled (the three articles in The Times, and three The Telegraph ones too). I'm not sure what Wikipedia's policy is when it comes to calibrating for this - but it seems unfair to mark down the subject's notability given that these are some of the most widely circulated papers in the UK. If it is of any help (and within Wikipedia's policy), I have a subscription for both papers so would willing to share relevant excerpts with Wikipedia editors so we can all arrive at an informed decision regarding deletion. _signed, Doogierev ^talk 00:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  The pieces in The Independent I was able to access.

  • This one has a clickbait title and is primarily advice given by the subject, which made me discount it off the bat. Looking more carefully, it has some information that might be independent, although the overall framing makes me a bit hesitant.
  • This one has no independent coverage of Seddon other than to mention his involvement in founding Access Oxbridge
  • This one is written by the subject, and thus does not count toward notability at all

  Overall, I still think that there's a stronger case for notability for Access Oxbridge than for Seddon himself. As for how you can share the paywalled source, I think the best way forward is for you to copy some choice paragraphs that demonstrate independent, significant coverage into this discussion so that others can evaluate them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:39, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

• Delete there are not enough sources that are indepdent, 3rd party significant secondary coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  Information from Times articles attached below:

  [1] Name is mentioned seven times in the article. Example quotes: "Joe Seddon graduated from Mansfield College last summer and turned down a job in the City to set up an online mentoring service, Access Oxbridge. It helps sixth formers from areas where few go to university."; "Mr Seddon is funding the scheme with money from IT consulting that he does on the side, but he is also soliciting donations so that he can expand the programme."

  [2] Referenced seven times in the article. Notable quotes: "Joe Seddon set up Access Oxbridge at his parents’ kitchen table in Morley, West Yorkshire, in 2018 shortly after graduating."; "Last year, Mr Seddon’s first year of operation, he helped to secure 50 offers, which he comfortably surpassed this year. The strike rate also has improved, with a 45 per cent success rate compared with 40 per cent last year."

  [3] Referenced seven times in this article too by name. Notable quotes: "Zero Gravity, an app launched by Joe Seddon, goes live today aiming to connect bright, underprivileged teenagers with students at the 24 Russell Group universities."; "Mr Seddon says that he has some sympathy with the universities which have struggled to come up with high-tech programmes such as Zero Gravity."

As you can see, certainly not passing references - he is the prime focus of all three of these articles. I think this should be taken into account by reviewers as we make our decision regarding whether to keep this article in the mainspace.

signed, Doogierev talk 23;03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)