Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Turner (civil servant)

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. JForget 01:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Turner (civil servant)

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

Non notable British civil servant, no assertion of notability given, can find no substantial coverage of him in reliable sources. Prod removed by User:Eclecticology with the edit summary "No reason to believe he is not notable.", which is not a good reason to keep the article, I believe –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —–– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —–– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The list of Turner's positions as a former senior civil servant makes his notability more than obvious. None of the material there is contentious, but I will leave it to someone in England with better access to biographical material to establish the source for the information. Eclecticology (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The notability criteria at WP:ANYBIO are quite clear and I fail to see how a list of positions in the civil service establish notability in Wikipedia terms. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 15:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Jezhotwells rightly points out, notability arises from the extent of coverage in reliable sources, not from a person's civil service position. In any case, we have no way of knowing how senior this guy actually was, "Operations Research" could be a massive division or a small unit. I'm not seeing the significant coverage in reliable sources here, so unless that changes over the course of this listing, the article ought to be deleted. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Mkativerata says, the inclusion criterion for an article in the encyclopedia is significant coverage in reliable sources, and I can find none. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Detete. The article just appears to be a résumé for a white-collar professional with a decent career. Chicken Wing (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2010 (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.