Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Bujak

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding the Philip Bujak page - which you seem to have taken an interest in. I note that he has been sentenced to jail for fraud (quite a significant sum of money). It is mentioned right at the end of the article - but I can't help thinking it should be higher up as it is rather headline news. I can't do it as I'm a former pupil of his! It actually makes the article about Bujak more interesting/relevant. best Mark Butcher 178.250.212.208 (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Bujak

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

A long rambling and admittedly heavily referenced article, with many unnecessary details, but ultimately the subject is the Chief Executive of a charity, and I am not convinced he is sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly seems to be pretty notable to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG.--Egghead06 (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sources in the article are mostly fairly weak (many by the subject or quoting him briefly rather than going into detail about him), but the WP:JUSTNOTNOTABLE deletion rationale is also weak. I think his high position in the UK Montessori movement should be enough for WP:GNG but would be more convinced if I could find more high-profile press coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs)
Keep. Agree that it passes WP:GNG. Philip Bujak has also been quoted/referenced to in a number of national newspapers and trade press. He seems to be a popular commentator on the Early Years sector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintage-academic (talk • contribs) 11:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC) — Vintage-academic (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in other sources, Passes WP:GNG Grd93 (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2014 (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.