Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Freemantle

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. Daniel (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James Freemantle

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

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. There are a handful of reliable-looking sources out there, but even with them, it still seems like an edge-case. I'm also weary of some of the sources out there, because this seems like such an obvious COI-created article. Whisperjanes (talk) 08:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Arts, Literature, and United Kingdom. Whisperjanes (talk) 08:23, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment - To save others some time, the best sources I found were 1: this National Library of Wales blog post[1], and 2: this collector's magazine article[2]. The rest of the sources I've seen are mainly passing mentions, non-independent, or primary sources/interviews. - Whisperjanes (talk) 08:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - so far I'm not sure. I feel generally that the nom is likely correct that there is limited referencing to show notability. However there do appear to be a number of interviews - and I'm unconvinced that these don't show anything about the individual. I understand the argument but for me if independent publications have decided that someone is worthy of an extended interview, that is showing that they are considered notable. JMWt (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is paywalled [3], hits on the name. Nothing else found; I honestly expected to find something about this fellow. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 3, 6, and 14 are sources per the source tool, so iffy. 9 is red, so no good. Rest are not identified by the source tool/bot. I don't think they help for notability as they don't appear RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 22 November 2023 (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.