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 keep. — Scientizzle 20:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Conway[edit]

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

Non-notable person. This is a biography of someone who briefly drew the attention of the British press, as his MP father was involved in a scandal at the time which he was tangentially involved in. However, he is not inherently notable, and there has been virtually no coverage of him outside of a short period in early 2008. As such, I don't think he has demonstrated the lasting significance that notability requires. I think the only real question here is whether 'Henry Conway' should redirect to his father's article, where he is mentioned, or to Henry Conway (disambiguation), which lists other people by that name. Robofish (talk) 01:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable person. A real try hard attempt to get a WP article. Note also the attempt to get "reflected notability" from his politician father. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Comment: I do remember hearing quite a bit about him at the time and remember he kept popping up in the press at the time, also because of his connections to the Royal Family as a friend of (I think) Beatrice and Eugenie. I will have a look round and see what I can find, but I think he may well squeak into notability. I certainly recognised the name and knew who he was, and that's unusual enough in itself as I tend to be indifferent to such people! Mabalu (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, there is rather a lot out there about him. I think it's clear that he is just notable enough to scrape through. There is quite a bit of coverage in the UK media, including recent references to the 'Fuck You I'm Rich' party and articles from the last three years, not just 2008. He has also been columnist for a couple magazines and keeps popping up in "these people went to this party" lists, although the latter alone wouldn't be enough to make him notable. But all the other stuff, I think, scrapes him through. I am editing the article at the moment to reflect this, and am changing my vote from "Weak keep" to "Keep". Mabalu (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm done, I've done pretty much all I can stomach, but I hope there's enough there to show that this fellow is still notable - regardless of my personal opinions, I don't think this article should be deleted. Mabalu (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mabalu (talk) 03:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep, because this person has received significant coverage in reliable sources: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Merge anything useful with Derek Conway. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that the Daily Mail recently saw fit (for whatever reason) to announce that he's been hired as a stylist for the Oxford Street branch of TopMan. 1. So obviously the UK media still consider him worth column space. Mabalu (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep. He'll never match the significance of statesmen or scientists but he is just barely notable enough (sigh). DocTree (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename; this Henry Conway is far from the most notable Henry Conway (see [5]), so "Henry Conway" must be 'Henry Conway (disambiguation)'. Rename this article to 'Henry Middlename Conway' or 'Henry Conway (Queen Sloane)' or 'Henry Conway (promotor)' or 'Henry Conway (writer)'. Again, the target of this current article certainly isn't the Henry Conway; please discuss at Talk:Henry Conway#Rename.--→gab 24dot grab← 16:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Mabalu's work has sufficient sources and ongoing coverage to establish notability, though in a rather depressing way.--Kubigula (talk) 03:05, 9 May 2012 (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.