Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graham Cooley

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. ✗plicit 14:09, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Cooley

[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)

Non-notable businessman with an apparently promotional biography; fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. The sources do not support notability. They are limited to:

WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS ([1], [2], [3], [4])
Non-independent sources affiliated with him ([5])
Press releases from his companies ([6], [7], [8]) and verbatim to thinly rewritten versions of them ([9], [10])
WP:PRIMARYSOURCE event descriptions and speaker bios ([11], [12], [13])

A WP:BEFORE search turns up no additional qualifying sources, just similar content to the above. As for other criteria, I don't see an WP:NACADEMIC pass. Regarding NACADEMIC #3 and WP:ANYBIO #1, his status as Fellow of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining is not a particularly significant award (the fellowship has an open application process, unlike say the Royal Society that requires nomination from existing members). Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Engineering, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Science deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:22, 30 April 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: I respectfully oppose the deletion of this article. In response to the concerns raised, I have added three additional WP:RS sources in which the subject, Dr. Graham Cooley, is prominently featured. These include substantial coverage in reputable media, and complement the existing citations already on the page. The article references multiple reliable and independent publications such as BBC, The Guardian, Lancaster Guardian, The Irish Times, and Financial Times. These are not trivial mentions or paid pieces; they are organic, editorially independent articles that discuss Dr. Cooley’s work and industry impact in depth.

Of particular note is the BBC Business article, which highlights Dr. Cooley’s role in the UK hydrogen sector. BBC is a globally recognized reliable source, and coverage of this nature is rare and significant.

Dr. Cooley has also served as CEO in multiple British companies, a fact well-documented through reliable sources cited in the article. His leadership in the energy sector spans decades, with clear public visibility and professional influence.

Considering these facts, I believe the article meets the criteria outlined in WP:SIGCOV, WP:GNG, and WP:BLP. The subject has received significant, independent coverage in reliable sources, which firmly establishes notability under Wikipedia’s guidelines. I respectfully ask that the page be retained.Jennffarzi (talk) 12:42, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed each of these in my nomination statement, but let's take them one by one:

BBC: A single WP:TRIVIALMENTION: The firm's chief executive, Graham Cooley, points out that it is much easier to store molecules such as hydrogen than electrons in batteries. "All the renewable energy companies… they've realised they've got a new product," he adds. "Now they can supply renewable molecules to the gas grid and industry."
The Guardian (1). This is WP:SPONSORED content; it says "advertiser content" at the top and in the URL.
The Guardian (2). This article briefly mentions Cooley but is not WP:SIGCOV of him.
Lancaster Guardian: As noted above, this is a near-verbatim reprint of a press release, see WP:PRSOURCE, from Cooley's company and thus not independent.
Irish Times: an obituary for Cooley's father with a single passing mention of Graham Cooley.
Financial Times: a paid placement in the "Company Announcements" section -- not reliable/independent coverage from the paper itself.

All in all, not a single source you mention qualifies toward notability, nor do any you have added. P.S. Did you use an LLM to write your comment above? Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I view this as an inappropriate nomination. An honorary professorship from a reputable university is a strong indicator that he has had a major impact in his field. IOM3 has a membership of ~15,000 and there is a Wikipedia page at Fellow of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining. The nominator also misquotes the application process, which requires 2 Iom3 Fellows or equivalent. His other Fellow appointments are significant, as is his award. He flies through WP:NPROF qualifying under #1, #2, #3, #5 and #7. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a lot of NACADEMIC passes to suggest with very little evidence to support them! Can you provide documentation of how Cooley's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources (ACADEMIC #1; hard since there are no independent, reliable sources that discuss Cooley, as discussed above). His actual scholarly output is so slender that Scopus has not even generated an h-index for him. What highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level has Cooley received (ACADEMIC #2)? I think it's highly debatable whether being a Fellow of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining counts for #3; you would need to supply independent evidence that the IOM3 is a "highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association. As for ACADEMIC #5, there is no evidence he has held a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, a named chair appointment that indicates a comparable level of achievement, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. His post at Brunel is an "honorary professorship", which according to our article on the subject is a recognition for individuals [who] are not university staff nor employees and thus not actually faculty of the college and not subject to the criterion. Finally, for ACADEMIC #7, you would need to suggest reliable, independent sources that demonstrate the person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity, and this is difficult since there are no reliable, independent sources I've found that indicate this. At the very best we have a pass on ACADEMIC #3, but that's debatable since I don't see evidence that the FIMMM is such a recognition. (Its Wikipedia article is sourced only to the organization itself.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971, I am sorry, but you are taking far too narrow a view.
Both the British RS & the US NAS & NAE elect people from industry who have not published extensively.

Perhaps the case for #C1 is weaker, but is leading the development of new products research?. It is certainly considered important in science.

I strongly suggest that you read IOM3 and do a little more in depth checking, and perhaps consult others or post to WT:Physics and/or WT:Chemistry to get input from academics. (I have a slight advantage here as this is in my field, Materials science.) Awards are routine indicators of impact, and you seem to be dismissing professional society pages as not independent, and their major, senior awards as not significant.

Lastly, being elected as an honorary professor is really major, please ask other academics if you want other evidence.
I agree that the coverage in new articles is not enough, but it does not have to be. We do not require the same type of coverage for WP:NPROF.

I suggest you withdraw your nomination, and post to WT:Physics and/or WT:Chemistry and/or WT:NPROF to get further input. If others agree with you then you can always do a second AfD, but I can forecast the type of responses. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that if other AfD participants agree with you, they'll chime in here. I do think there are zero grounds for a "speedy keep"; what's going on here is a disagreement about how to apply the criteria of NACADEMIC, but I have offered an appropriate rationale for the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More sources found Dr. Graham Cooley is featured on more WP:RS. Take a look at these Sources from The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph:

There's a need to avoid "REF-BOMBING" on the page. I only added 2 out these as extra sources. There are others. These are all organic independent sources written by independent authors.Jennffarzi (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis: the Guardian is SIGCOV of Cooley's company that quotes him a couple times incidentally to his role as CEO. Same applies to this Guardian piece. The Telegraph has a single trivial mention of Cooley. [New hydrogen refuelling company to drive a greater adoption of fuel-cell cars This Telegraph piece] appears to have three trivial mentions. None of these is WP:SIGCOV of Cooley himself. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above discussion. Go4thProsper (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes PROF, although the sources need to be cleaned up. Ping me if you want me to edit it. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2025 (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.