Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Newman

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. The primary claim to notability (RSA fellowship) seems to be a different person of the same name. No other claim to notability established or sourced. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Newman

[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)

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Should be notable, but don't see it. Atrocious references. No indication. scope_creep^Talk 01:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar - The article says that he is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. That would satisfy notability criterion for any biography number 1, a well-known and significant honor. However, the article sources that recognition to The Leadership Agency, which may be the same as The Leadership Council, and Newman is the founder of that, so that it isn't an independent source. Attempting to check the reference on-line times out. If FRSA can be verified, then he passes biographical notability, in which case this article should be scrubbed to a stub to get rid of the puffery. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- FRSA is certainly not sufficient to meet WP:ANYBIO. Paid for and ten a penny. Not a real honour. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete pending verification of whether he is FRSA. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See also Draft:Martin Newman (author). Is this the same person? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only Martin Newman who is a member of a royal society is [1] and it seems to be a completely different person. Unless anyone else find different its a delete from me.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think it is a different person right enough. The first block of references are entirely non-specific, which I've not seen before. I thought it was hoax originally. scope_creep^Talk 14:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2020 (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.