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. At the risk of antagonizing everyone present, I will state that I feel neither side has made a truly air-tight argument regarding the article's worthiness. In this "no consensus" closing, I would invite the article's supporters to work to strengthen the text and referencing. I would also invite the article's opponents to consider revisiting this as a second nomination later in the year, in the event we hear nothing further from Mr. Snowdon and/or his supporters and that his accomplishments are, indeed, a flash in the pan. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Snowdon[edit]

Barry Snowdon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article about a local street sweeper who foiled a mugging and dealt with a small fire some months later - article apparently written by someone campaigning for this person to get an award and in a style that reads like a local newspaper piece. Wholly non-notable outside of his local area and wholly unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the place to promote someone's campaign for an award. Fails WP:BIO. Astronaut (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. Completely unnecessary. 68.244.159.15 (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per A7. Daniel Case (talk) 17:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - A first glance it might appear to be just some local interest guy, but he actually just won a national award for his acts - don't be fooled by the name of the award "Local Government Council Worker of the Year" as it refers to the nature of those competing for in, not the scope of the award. Additionally, he has been covered by more than a dozen time in reliable sources for his actions/awards:

1. Article about recent award
2. Second article about the recent award
3. Third article on recent national award
4. Article about being nominated for the award he just won
5. Local article asking people to vote for him
6. Article about people campaigning for him
7. Another article about people campaigning for him
8. Article about his 2nd heroic act
9. Earlier award for his first heroic act
10. Another different award
11. TV show surprises him with recognition + free trip for his actions
12. 2nd article about same TV surprise
13. Article about being nominated for yet another different award
14. and more

Considered collectively, this is clearly coverage that goes beyond "one event" or mere "local interest news." He has been recognized by numerous different people over a 2+ year span. Problems with the article's tone can be fixed via editing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I really do think that "one event" applies here. It was really for putting out a fire that he was nominated, and the coverage stems from that nomination and subsequent win. This is classic local paper filler material, and as Barry himself says ""I'm not a super hero, just a road sweeper who takes pride in keeping Warsop clean for the residents." Exactly. To excuse the pun, a flash in the pan. Fences&Windows 21:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Receiving a national level award passes notability standards, though the article should be trimmed. -Falcon8765 (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep based on sources found by ThaddeusB. Edward321 (talk) 01:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Even if newspapers talk about the event more than once, it's still WP:BLP1E. And awards for the one event aren't seperate events. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except it was at least two separate events. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two minor acts of bravery that got him some local press coverage do not amount to notability. Fences&Windows 21:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the sources are local, nor are all the awards he won. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources provided by ThaddeusB are all local: thisisnottingham.co.uk, teletext.co.uk/regionalnews/eastwestmidlands, fenlandcitizen.co.uk/latest-east-midlands-news/, chad.co.uk, mansfield103.co.uk all deal specifically with the East Midlands area of the UK. The report on accessmylibrary.com says "From Nottingham Evening Post". Astronaut (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A local source would be specific to Warsop. A source dedicated to a specific region, is by definition regional, not local. (And several of the sources do cover the whole country, but divide their coverage up by region.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP this is notable and interesting article for the Wikipedia. Needs clean-up though. Aliveatoms (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Minor acts of bravery and awards for such are not notable enough for wikipedia. -Djsasso (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the meet the WP:GNG, then yes, they are. This one does, and so is indeed worthy of Wikipedia. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Based on likely transient "fame". A clarification on BLP1E however - it has been pointed out before Lee Harvey Oswald could fall into this category. The event is an important part - not just the one. Do we have an article on the mugging? Do we have an article on the fire? Do we have an article about the campaign? No, No, No. If the event is not notable then the participant in the event seems even less so. The fact that there were two non-notable events does not exempt someone from BLP1E - excpet via wikilawyering. Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The these other artcles do not (yet) exist, does not diminish the notability of this one. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please have the deceny to read stuff you link to, and have the decency to read how my comment above was split into two elements - and that my argument to delete is not based on "other stuff not existing". Pedro :  Chat  22:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the comment placed as and where it was, and responded. Please yourself try to extend a little good faith. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read AGF one day, when you have time - you may be astounded to learn if goes both ways. The facts are simple - In my opinion this in a transient award which does not merit coverage. In addition (with respect to my commentary and not my opinion on the article) there was conversation above regarding BLP1E that needs to be settled - BLP1E has too much focus on one rather than event when it should be the other way round - the event drives the notability. But that was my comment on the above discussion (you are, I am sure, aware AFD is a discussion, hence why it was moved form VFD many years ago) which I made in one place with my delete opinion. There is no requirement to break up this whole process with responses under each individual comments - I have faith in the closing admin to work through the debate. Pedro :  Chat  22:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That you have an opinion and that mine differs from yours does not make either of us automatically right or either of us automatically wrong. I found the sources and argument presented by User:ThaddeusB to be quite convincing, and have myself begun improvements to the article, rather than just let it sit there and be debated in its poorer form. That multiple local acts of heroism were deemed notable enough to then receive continued national attention and national awards kinda pushes it over the bar for me, thank you. We may not agree in this instance, but improving the article i\nmproves Wikipedia. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have twice shoved AGF at me tonight Michael when you clearly have no clue what it is about. This started over your badgering of my oppose at RFA (now retracted) and even though I came to your talk to thank you for you work at the article you relentlessly push your bad faith and ill informed opinion as to where my oppose is grounded. Please drop it. I've got my opinion, you've got yours. It's interesting to note your "...you have an opinion and that mine differs from yours does not make either of us automatically right... comment when I'm not objecting to your keep vote isn't it.... I'm going to bed so feel free to have the WP:LASTWORD Pedro :  Chat  23:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and improve article and sourcing of notability through normal editing[1] AfD is not for cleanup. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All eleven Google news hits are local news sources. Astronaut (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have begun the needed cleanup and sourcing to the article. While the acts of bravery themselves were "local" and of questionable note, the events have since received national exposure and recognition, thus meeting the inclusion criteria of WP:GNG. Had it stayed local, the recognition might not be generally notable outside his town. But now that recognition has moved nationally and been recognized in a broader context, assures its worthiness for inclusion. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, mentions in Mansfield Chad, This Is Nottingham, Mansfield 103 and Fenland Today are no more than local coverage and a very long way from "national exposure and recognition". The article will therefore still fail to meet the inclusion criteria of WP:GNG. Astronaut (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disgree and will continue to improve the article. Thet local actions have taken national recognition, even if some of the sources are "local" paper though others are not, allow his notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I found an additional source - BBC Nottingham story: "Local hero street cleaner Barry Snowdon has been named as the bravest council worker in Britain." --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Add these to establish notability:
  • Also featured on the local gov't home page: [2]
  • story about being back by MP
• And these to build the article:
  • Profile at gov't page: [3]
  • Profile at award page: [4]

--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC) And a couple more decidedly not local sources:[reply]

• The Scottsman
• Public Sector Executive

--ThaddeusB (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is not notable. Collecting a string of mentions of a couple of incidents in various newspapers does not establish notability, otherwise every parochial incident which gets mentioned in newspapers for a day or two would be notable. Local newspapers often give coverage to quite trivial matters: often even more trivial than this, and the fact that this man's exploits have been mentioned in local newspapers in Nottingham and Mansfield comes nowhere near satisfying Wikipedia's standard of substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, this might usually be the case... except it stops being local trivia when that local heroism receives recognition on a national level... with a national television show and a national award, and then been subsequently covered in sources outside that locality. Ceratainly the local press are proud of this fellow, and their coverage is extensive, but wider coverage exists and has just been added to the article. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't agree at all. I have known national press and television to decide to give coverage to utterly trivial events. For example, a bus conductor was sacked for allowing tea to be served to passengers on his bus. He wrote to a local newspaper, and from there it spread to numerous national papers. The incident does not deserve an encyclopedia article because of that coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Did the bus driver receive both regional and national awards for his actions? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Notability isn't subjective - national coverage establishes notability. We don't decide what deserves coverage, our sources do and we go with it. To say otherwise is an argument for "I don't like it". --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Is there a Wikipedia policy or guideline which says that "national coverage establishes notability"? I am not aware of one. If there is then I wonder how it is reconciled with the general notability guideline requirement for "significant" coverage: surely trivial coverage does not become significant coverage just because it has appeared in a national publication. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• National coverage doesn't automatically confer notability. A good example would be the recent AfD on Stephen Trujillo, who was also decorated for bravery. He was specifically mentioned in one of Reagan's State of the Union speeches and his bravery was speeled out in the speech. The speech was covered by nearly every credible news service in the US. A large number of them, of course, many national outlets did sidebar type stuff on Trujillo. But the Trujillo article couldn't withstand the AfD a stand alone and it was merged to another one. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Significant coverage" refers to the length/quality of the coverage, not the nature of the material covered:

“

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

”

• Clearly nearly all the 20+ sources meet the definition of "Significant coverage."

  Note, that by official guidelines local coverage would be sufficient to establish notability. There is not an official consensus that local subjects aren't notable and proposals have thus far failed to establish guidelines on how to determine if a local subject is notable. However, there is a general precedent that local celebrities need to have coverage beyond their local newspaper to be notable, which is why I pointed out that this "local figure" does have coverage beyond his local paper. It is not an official guideline that national coverage establishes notability, just as it is not an official guideline that local coverage does not establish it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]