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.
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can do better than this. Nothing stated in the article is an automatic inclusion freebie that would exempt a person from actually having to get over
WP:GNG on the sourcing — but the sources here are a
user-generated discussion forum, which is not valid support for notability at all, and a magazine article in which he's the speaker and not the subject, which is not enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only media source in play. And furthermore, this is written far more like a
résumé than like a proper encyclopedia article, and even politicians who cleanly pass NPOL right on its face still don't get to have an article that's written and formatted this way. If somebody can do better, writing it properly and showing much better evidence of reliable sourcing than this shows, then by all means bring it on — but this, as written and sourced, is not good enough. And finally, the notability bar is not passed simply by asserting it as a given that he's more notable than an unnamed "milking lady" — it's passed by showing some evidence that he passes our notability criteria, namely by finding and showing better notability-supporting sources. Furthermore, this represents no significant improvement over the version that was deleted in 2015, but rather was recreated as a straight copy-paste of the first version, meaning it really should have been speedied as a recreation of deleted content right away rather than surviving four more years.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Bearcat: Have you read the other statement that I wrote? In the second statement I said he meets
WP:PROF #3 per
this. The fact that the article is a mess, yes, heartily agree. But we don't delete articles here for being promotional or what not, we fix or trim them instead.--
Biografer (
talk)
21:14, 14 December 2019 (UTC)reply
That isn't a
reliable source for the purposes of establishing his notability per
WP:PROF either. Even that notability criterion is not automatically passed just because it's technically confirmable in a bad or unreliable source — it still has to be supported by a non-trivial kind and volume of reliable sourcing, such as analysis of his academic work in academic journals, before a person actually gets that pass.
Bearcat (
talk)
21:35, 14 December 2019 (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.