- 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 redirect to Petra Stunt. joe deckertalk 02:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- James Stunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I've been cleaning up this article from this version but the more I look at the sources, the less convinced I've become that the subject meets WP:BIO. He was clearly not notable at the first AFD in 2007 and the second in 2011 closed as redirect to Petra Ecclestone per WP:NOTINHERITED. There has been further coverage since then, but the only substantial coverage has been in The Daily Mail [1] [2] [3] [4] which quite rightly is not an ideal source for BLPs and those sources contain almost zero encyclopedic information. They've repeatedly called him a billionaire, but I'm unable to find any mention of him in either the Forbes or Sunday Times rich lists and a (very short) FT blog called him a "reputed billionaire". If the Daily Mail can't check such a simple fact then there is little hope for the reliability of other information in the articles. I've searched in Factiva and google news but haven't turned up any other coverage about him other than brief snippets such as [5]. There were also mentions in relation to an art deal as well [6] [7] [8] but the subject of those is the painting rather than Stunt and none provide any biographical information. Apologies for the length of the nom, but unless there is something that I've missed I think that we should reinstate the redirect to Petra Ecclestone. SmartSE (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep: Maybe James Stunt did not have significant coverage in the previous two AFDs but now he has received substantial coverage in media, magazines, news, shows, photography etc. Maybe Forbes could not verify he was a billionaire but other sources like daily mail, FT and others have verified this fact. This article was copy edited by GOCE member Jonesey95 so there is no COI remaining in this article click here. References that were removed from this article were removed because they were not supporting wording they were with but they still did give coverage to James Stunt. This article should not be deleted because he has repetitive coverage in many credible sources. I'm completely disagree with SmartSE, i'v found some mentions about him 1 as long as i know therichest is a reliable source, 2. We can removce billionaire tittle, but we can't remove his deeds and Wikipedia page. BBC America wrote ; "Picture This: A Billionaire's Sacrifice Likely to Benefit Britain's Art Lovers" let's say BBC is not a reliable source. Was it a passing mention? . The Daily Telegraph published a news; "Van Dyck portrait saved for the nation". The New York Times says "Rejuvenating a Tepid Market for Old Masters : The buyer was identified by dealers as the British businessman James Stunt". James got lot of citations from DailyMail because he a british, it is natural, isn't it?. Also do check this log All public logs. Also check; American The Boston Globe says; British billionaire loaned paintings to MFA & Apollo (magazine); The collectors 40 under 40 USA and Electoral Commission (United Kingdom); Donations and loans received by political parties and non-party campaigners in the fifth pre-poll report at the General Election. Thanks! ---Khocon (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Khocon: - I've already addressed most of those sources in the nomination and explained why I don't think that they are sufficient to establish notability. The Apollo magazine is the only new one, but once again the coverage is brief. You haven't explained why my line of reasoning is incorrect. SmartSE (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Smartse: - I hope, you will get better explanations from other volunteers. Let's see. It's not between you and me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Khocon (talk • contribs) 04:23, 6 December 2015
- Perhaps redirect again for now as all of these including the listed information as well is simply not enough for convincing solid notability. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Based on secondary references, this entry meets criteria.WikiWatcher987 (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This article has previously attracted paid editors, most recently Skinssnapper (talk · contribs) who's since been blocked as a sock. Khocon discloses that they are a paid editor but has stated they are not being paid to edit this article. WikiWatcher987 is a brand new user who is almost exclusively interested in AFDs. SmartSE (talk) 12:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Petra Ecclestone and create a new subsection in that article for the sourced content about the attempted art purchase and any other sourced information about James Stunt. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Jonesey95: It's not fair, why should we create a section about James Stunts's art purchases details on his Wife's Wiki page?. Don't you think, James Stunt is notable? Khocon (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I do not think he is notable on his own, according to the sources that we have been able to find. Of the sources in the current version in the article, they are either Daily Mail and OK!, which are paparazzi junk; articles about his wife; articles about an art purchase that he didn't make; web pages on sites that do not appear to be RS (e.g. Business Rich and Celebrity Family); and a driving.co.uk piece and an FT blog piece that are trivial mentions of his cars. All hat, no cattle. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Amount of press coverage seems to convey notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Petra Ecclestone - According to the statement of SmartSE. - Variation 25.2 (talk) 06:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Petra Ecclestone - As per SmartSE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Petra Ecclestone seems to be the best solution. The slimness of the coverage doesn't provide notability under our guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: The article as I saw it has no information other than his relationship with Petra and irrelevant things such as the car he travels in. There's nothing in there that shows notability. The Daily Mail will churn out a number of articles on anyone, especially someone who is married to the young blonde daughter of a billionaire. A previous version about his car number plates and philanthropic donations had nothing of note either, just a superfluous collection of statements. There's little info about his current company which may have been big enough to make him notable, but it seems his current status as entrepreneur falls short of requirements: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2613504/His-Rollers-Armed-bodyguards-Wild-champagne-sprees-nightclubs-Why-Bernie-Ecclestone-thinks-billionaire-son-laws-flash-good.html Rayman60 (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Rayman60 is a fresh meat. I'm wondering why this article got "Keep" votes?. James Stunt clearly a notable subject for Wiki. Technically it's a 4th AFD, this article was restored per a consensus All public logs. My fellow volunteers are repeatedly voting Redirect to Petra Ecclestone without any discussion and research. Thanks for your efforts guys! -Khocon (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Khocon: By 'fresh meat' do you mean WP:MEAT? As in are you suggesting I requested Rayman60 !vote here? I can assure you that that is not the case and request you withdraw that allegation. SmartSE (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, i did not mean WP:MEAT. I just wanted to say he is a new user. Just like you said before about WikiWatcher987.-Khocon (talk) 21:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: New to this debate certainly, but perhaps not fresh in any other manner. I came to the article last night via http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/how-much-for-dinner-with-david-cameron-tories-reveal-list-of-mega-rich-donors-who-spend-50000-to-9858102.html#gallery independently and without coersion, suggestion or contact on or off wiki (noticed the tags so had a look under the hood and offered an opinion). Rayman60 (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - this is clearly somebody who has fame through association and not in his own right,. I see zero notability here especially because notability is not inherited, in this case from his partner. Merge , if you must, with the article on his wife, but on the basis of the evidence to date, deletion seems to be the right choice. Velella Velella Talk 19:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No opinion on the deletion nomination, but I just thought I would mention I was canvassed here by Khocon [9]. I seem to be one of many users they've invited to participate. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Petra Ecclestone SmartSE sets out the case very well. James Stunt might be notable one day, but not at present. WP:NOTINHERITED. I've just checked my hard copy, and he is NOT on the 2015 Sunday Times Rich List of the 1000 wealthiest in the UK - those with £100 million or more. Edwardx (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete and redirect Nearly all coverage seems to be gossip-rag type stuff strongly tied to Petra Ecclestone and her family.OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep: although much of the content out there appears to be weak with gossip-related comments, there is quite a lot out there that indicates that he is notable to a large group of people globally. Although one can argue that some of the sources aren't reliable secondary sources, it would lead one to wonder why so many of them write articles about Mr. Stunt. Furthermore, according to WP:BASIC, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." With that said, I suggest that we keep the article. By the way, I too was canvassed here by User:Khocon on my talk page. Hermera34 (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Petra Ecclestone - Although irrelevant to this discussion, I was also one of the many users canvassed by Khocon. I personally agree with the sound arguments to redirect to Petra Ecclestone. JQTriple7 talk 21:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Petra Ecclestone - same as JQTriple and Ks0stm, I was canvassed by Khocon. I don't see anything in here which details why he's notable. He's a freakin' billionaire and the best you can do on how he got his money is one short sentence?!?? At least the article for Petra seems to have more heft (albeit not much more...). Redirect for now. Tabercil (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I was also canvassed here by Khocon; therefore, I will not be opining in this discussion. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:07, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I was taklpage notified by Khocon. I've deliberately not read above to learn which way s/he leans. My immediate impression is "mild keep". Tony (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Redriect to Petra Stunt, per Swister Twister. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, how bad can it be if the 'article' isn't even capable of making you understand what this person should be known for, or what he does for a living. No encyclopedical value whatsoever. --Midas02 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2015 (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.