- 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 delete. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Pearce Robinson ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Complete vanity page of a non-notable politician. Article is WP:REFBOMBed heavily and his actions, such as "sitting in on" debates or writing letters to political leaders, are things that many people do on a regular basis. It appears an article on this subject was deleted via discussion in 2012 for similar reasons so I believe WP:SALTing the namespace should be considered. GPL93 ( talk) 23:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 ( talk) 23:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. GPL93 ( talk) 23:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I think ‘vanity page’ is quite a kind description. Mccapra ( talk) 05:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- ’’’Don't Delete’’’ instead of deleting the article, perhaps you can edit and or remove the material that you consider ‘vanity’. Please see more notable links from the BBC and UK House of Lords: International Relations in the 21st Century, UK House of Lords Debate, Pearce Robinson speech transcript: https://www.parliament.uk/documents/lords-information-office/2018/20946%20HoL%20Chamber%20Event%20Transcript%202017%20WEB%20SPREADS.PDF please also reference UK Parliament Channel for the debate. Pearce Robinson on Britain’s role post Brexit
BBC Documentary: Truth & The Commonwealth, BBC Panelist https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w3csxg9y
Commentary on the racism of Caribbean Next Top Model https://atlantablackstar.com/2018/09/26/caribbeans-next-top-model-contestant-wants-apology-for-being-forced-to-relax-hair/
BBC One: Britain’s Secret Charity Cheats. Journalist on the case of Nadia Chase-Ali https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0005jj5 Capture2015 —Preceding undated comment added 05:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- None of these sources are actually about Robinson (you?). The whole thing is vanity and neither WP:GNG or WP:NPOL are passed. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 10:50, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
The sources actually are about the subject. Please read through House of Lords transcript page 7 and look at the documentary. parliament TV. I’m not sure what the (you?) is suggesting. The Programme on BBC One Britain’s Secret Charity Cheats is actually a news feature done by him on the programme. The link is listed. Please review. I’ve created pages [Reema Harrysingh-Carmona]], [Wade Mark]] and more recently some others that are in draft.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Capture2015 ( talk • contribs) 11:03, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- They aren't though, Robinson is not the focus of any of these references. The (you?) is because it reads like an WP:AUTOBIO. The fact that you have uploaded an image of Robinson's signature suggests you are close enough to have a WP:COI with the subject at the least. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 11:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete. Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:GNG, but the sources are not getting him over GNG. The notability test for getting a person into Wikipedia hinges on showing that he has been the subject of a significant volume of news coverage about him, and is not passed just by showing that his name has been mentioned in news coverage whose primary subject is other things or people. But the sources here are falling on the wrong side of that distinction — there are sources which mention his name in the process of being fundamentally about something or someone else; there are sources which don't even mention his name at all, but serve only to verify completely tangential facts like how many people are affected by the construction of a highway; and there are blogs and primary sources which are not support for notability at all, but there are no sources which are both reliable and about him. And no, people are also not notable just because you can provide transcripts of their own speeches, or video clips of them talking on the news — a person does not become notable by doing the speaking in a source, they become notable by being the thing that other people are speaking about. So no, none of these sources are sufficient at all, and the article doesn't indicate that he's done anything "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better sources than this. Bearcat ( talk) 16:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Can you ‘move’ this article to draft. I will re-work it. Thanks for your guidance. Talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I'd be opposed to moving to the draftspace given that A) the subject does not appear to meet our notability standards and B) this is already a remake of an article that was deleted and both AfDs made note of the promotional aspects of the article. I'd say there's a better argument for WP:SALTing it that draftifying. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 18:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. 4meter4 ( talk) 01:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. -- SalmanZ ( talk) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- 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.