- 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 no consensus. This close is without prejudice to further discussion of the move proposed by Timothy signed, Rosguill talk 05:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Martin Rafferty
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Martin Rafferty ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO. Most of the entries are just passing mentions/announcements about the organization he heads. The two awards are fairly obscure, and trying to access the Gates Foundation source brings up a security warning. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Oregon. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The Bill Gates Foundation article can be accessed in Archive.org here and mentions him 5 times. Daily Emerald mentions him 4 times. KLCC mentions him 3 times. KVALL mentions him 14 times. BTW, I found several other articles in Google news that mention him. Hence these are not all passing mentions, so he meets WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC. Hkkingg ( talk) 06:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Reply. Other than the Gates Foundation, the rest are passing mentions in articles about the organization he founded. The KVAL article is the best of the lot, but that is only coverage by a local TV station about the organization and the "mentions" are mostly things he says and claims. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. I support keeping it as there is enough news coverage to meet notability. Pershkoviski ( talk) 20:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk) 13:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Out of all the currently cited sources, only source 9 constitutes significant coverage, with the rest being trivial mentions or lists as recipients of some minor awards. The sole article by Clackamas Review isn't really enough to support the entire article. Searches of the name "Martin Rafferty" yields more results about an Irish businessman than the American activist. Fails WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 03:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)- Keep: compatriots, I submit this humble plea. Let us not disregard the 9th source. A veritable testament to Mr. Rafferty's public significance, it combines with preceding citations to form a robust mosaic of notability. Assembled together, they satisfy our stringent guidelines. To cast this article into oblivion would be a transgression against truth and a slight to the purpose of our noble enterprise. Jack4576 ( talk) 09:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Move: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. These refs [1], [2] do have brief info about the subject but not enough to satisfy SIGCOV. The remaining refs are about the org, Youth ERA, which would pass N. BEFORE showed refs about the org, but nothing SIGCOV about the subject. Move the article to Youth ERA and change it into an article about the org with a section and redirect about the subject. // Timothy :: talk 04:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Off topic discussion
|
|---|
|
- 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.
- 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 no consensus. This close is without prejudice to further discussion of the move proposed by Timothy signed, Rosguill talk 05:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Martin Rafferty
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Martin Rafferty ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO. Most of the entries are just passing mentions/announcements about the organization he heads. The two awards are fairly obscure, and trying to access the Gates Foundation source brings up a security warning. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Oregon. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 08:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The Bill Gates Foundation article can be accessed in Archive.org here and mentions him 5 times. Daily Emerald mentions him 4 times. KLCC mentions him 3 times. KVALL mentions him 14 times. BTW, I found several other articles in Google news that mention him. Hence these are not all passing mentions, so he meets WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC. Hkkingg ( talk) 06:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Reply. Other than the Gates Foundation, the rest are passing mentions in articles about the organization he founded. The KVAL article is the best of the lot, but that is only coverage by a local TV station about the organization and the "mentions" are mostly things he says and claims. Clarityfiend ( talk) 23:18, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. I support keeping it as there is enough news coverage to meet notability. Pershkoviski ( talk) 20:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles ( talk) 13:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
- Delete. Out of all the currently cited sources, only source 9 constitutes significant coverage, with the rest being trivial mentions or lists as recipients of some minor awards. The sole article by Clackamas Review isn't really enough to support the entire article. Searches of the name "Martin Rafferty" yields more results about an Irish businessman than the American activist. Fails WP:GNG. Tutwakhamoe ( talk) 03:08, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 08:11, 16 May 2023 (UTC)- Keep: compatriots, I submit this humble plea. Let us not disregard the 9th source. A veritable testament to Mr. Rafferty's public significance, it combines with preceding citations to form a robust mosaic of notability. Assembled together, they satisfy our stringent guidelines. To cast this article into oblivion would be a transgression against truth and a slight to the purpose of our noble enterprise. Jack4576 ( talk) 09:34, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- Move: BLP, Fails GNG and BIO. These refs [1], [2] do have brief info about the subject but not enough to satisfy SIGCOV. The remaining refs are about the org, Youth ERA, which would pass N. BEFORE showed refs about the org, but nothing SIGCOV about the subject. Move the article to Youth ERA and change it into an article about the org with a section and redirect about the subject. // Timothy :: talk 04:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:25, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Off topic discussion
|
|---|
|
- 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.