David Clowes : This is not enough.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 15:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football 's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions . CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy keep Clearly notable person, [5] , [6] , [7] , [8] . Loads online for him, take it you did no homework on him. Govvy ( talk ) 12:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Agreed@ Govvy , there are plenty of other Wikipedia articles for other football club owners which have the same or less information than this one. Examples being: Steve Lansdown of Bristol City, Ruben Gnanalingam of Queens Park Rangers, Dejphon Chansiri of Sheffield Wednesday, Kyril Louis-Dreyfus of Sundeland, Gino Pozzo of Watford. Are we suggesting that all of these people should also have their articles deleted? Not only this, but surely being the owner of a large sporting organisation is a notable enough feat to deserve their own article? Further to this he is a successful business man running a large construction company with some very notable projects within the United Kingdom, I also believe Clowes Developments should also have their own page very soon. @ TheLongTone David Clowes is clearly deserving of their own article based on other pages dedicated to other sporting owners with similar accomplishments. If you delete this page you are going against precedence set for other pages. Benwilliams1196 ( talk ) 15:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not disagreeing with the !vote, but please be aware that we don't base deletion arguments on the existence of other pages. The question is whether the subject is significantly treated in independent reliable secondary sources. Those are what the article will be built from. On the sourcing, the four added by Govvy are newspaper reports which are primary sources. Primary sources do not count towards notability. However, I would take the breadth of suchs sources as being an indicator that secondary sources are likely to exist too. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 15:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] See WP:Otherstuff I am aware that there are people who think that anything to do with kick-the-ball is notable; they are misguided. TheLongTone ( talk ) 15:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To qualify for speedy keep, you should specify one of the speedy keep criteria per WP:SKCRIT . I don't think any of those apply. In particular, I think a reasonable understanding of the deletion rationale is that it does not meet GNG, so 1 doesn't apply. I'll also note that every source on the page is a primary source. As I already said, the breadth of coverage may still indicate notability, but this is not a clear GNG pass as it stands. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 15:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] ' comment .  As explicitly stated in the nomination , this man would excite no interest whatsoever were it not for his involvement with a kick-the-ball business.  All the 'he must be notable' cites above are to do with this.  They establish that he is involved with Derby County.  They DO NOT serve to establish notability.  TheLongTone ( talk ) 15:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment @ Sirfurboy : Firstly, the first source I posted above isn't a newspaper, its the BBC!  Next, the BBC is not a primary source, nor is the Daily Telegraph, nor is the other newspapers, newspapers do not count as primary sourcing.  Also, there is nothing wrong with me saying speedy keep.  Govvy ( talk ) 18:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, the BBC is a news web site not a paper.  But it is still all primary sourcing.  Please see WP:PRIMARYNEWS .  Also WP:PRIMARY and especially note d, which itself also refers to WP:NEWSORG .  These are reliable but primary sources.  Are there any secondary sources about the subject?  If not, what is the breadth of news coverage?  Is it WP:SUSTAINED ?  Per SUSTAINED, where news coverage is sustained over a long period this is an indicator of notability .  2 of those you have provided are not just primary but also from the same day last June, the other two are from the same day this year and in the same paper (so they count as one in any case).  As for saying "speedy", you can certainly say it, but if you wish it to be acted upon, you need to specify the speedy keep criterion engaged.  Otherwise it is just a keep.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 19:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per sources above which show notability.  Giant Snowman 19:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Get real.  They shoe that people are interested in Kick-the-ball.  They do not establish the notability of this ordinary businessman.  Are individual footballs notable now.  btw?  TheLongTone ( talk ) 15:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , passes GNG with significant coverage. -- Ortizesp ( talk ) 03:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Draftify - Despite the claim above, there is no demonstration - above or in the article - of significant coverage in independent reliable secondary sources, which is what would be required for GNG.  The sources above are all primary sources and the extent of the coverage is limited in time and focussed on one thing (the takeover of Derby FC).  There is no presumption of notability and notability has not yet been demonstrated.  Yet I expect that there is a case that this businessman is or soon will be notable.  For instance, I think this: [9] is significant coverage in an independent reliable secondary source.  We need multiple sources to meet GNG but that is one that properly focusses on Clowes.  The reason it is necessary to insist on secondary sources is that these are what provide us the information that allows us to create an article.  The current article is mostly about the purchase of Derby FC because it is written around those primary sources, but secondary sources like this one will allow the article to be written on the person.  I expect more secondary sources exist or will be written soon, and a decent article is possible when they are.  The page creator has made a decent start with this page, and with some work this will be an encyclopaedic article.  However its reliance on primary sources needs to be addressed.  Deletion is not for clean-up, so keep would be acceptable here, if the article were tagged.  However, the article is new and eligible for draftification.  As such, that would be my preference.  Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk ) 08:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  I'm not an expert in sports, but I think the consensus has been that the majority owners of major teams are almost always notable.  Bearian ( talk ) 20:45, 31 January 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus