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 only reference provided is a broken link. I get 39 Google hits for this name, many of which are drawn from the Wikipedia article. Notability is certainly not asserted in the current article. (He supposedly killed his brother, then became relatively wealthy and gave money to some orphans... This does not make him notable in my eyes.)
Bueller 007 (
talk) 00:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - I think references like
this and
this are enough to verify the content of the article and substantiate notability. St★lwart111 01:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. Feel free to improve the articles with these references then.
Bueller 007 (
talk) 01:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Feel free to do it yourself, You're more than capable.... –
Davey2010Talk 01:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Yeah, there's no requirement for me to fix articles and this AFD is not the first time you've suggested that articles should be deleted for lack of effort. In reality, the only related policy that applies is
WP:BEFORE. Given how many sources can be easily found, I question whether you followed those instructions. I'm thinking this can probably just be closed. St★lwart111 02:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Pretty sure I didn't say you were "required" to do it. In addition to manners, you might want to work on that reading comprehension, yeah.
Bueller 007 (
talk) 02:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)reply
LOL. Replace "required" with any synonym consistent with your intent; you're still wrong. Multiple, disruptive, non-policy AFDs and you want to lecture people on comprehension and manners. You're a riot. St★lwart111 02:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NORTH AMERICA1000 01:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per Stalwart and Davey2010; though not all of the sources linked are high-quality, most seem to be.
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad) 04:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Guyana still has a "Saffon" law on the books based the trust left by his will (mentioned in the article, I added a ref to the law). Seems notable enough.
—Noah 05:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per the sources presented in this discussion.
-- Calidum 06:52, 27 January 2015 (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.
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 only reference provided is a broken link. I get 39 Google hits for this name, many of which are drawn from the Wikipedia article. Notability is certainly not asserted in the current article. (He supposedly killed his brother, then became relatively wealthy and gave money to some orphans... This does not make him notable in my eyes.)
Bueller 007 (
talk) 00:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - I think references like
this and
this are enough to verify the content of the article and substantiate notability. St★lwart111 01:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment. Feel free to improve the articles with these references then.
Bueller 007 (
talk) 01:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Feel free to do it yourself, You're more than capable.... –
Davey2010Talk 01:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Yeah, there's no requirement for me to fix articles and this AFD is not the first time you've suggested that articles should be deleted for lack of effort. In reality, the only related policy that applies is
WP:BEFORE. Given how many sources can be easily found, I question whether you followed those instructions. I'm thinking this can probably just be closed. St★lwart111 02:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Pretty sure I didn't say you were "required" to do it. In addition to manners, you might want to work on that reading comprehension, yeah.
Bueller 007 (
talk) 02:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)reply
LOL. Replace "required" with any synonym consistent with your intent; you're still wrong. Multiple, disruptive, non-policy AFDs and you want to lecture people on comprehension and manners. You're a riot. St★lwart111 02:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
NORTH AMERICA1000 01:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per Stalwart and Davey2010; though not all of the sources linked are high-quality, most seem to be.
הסרפד (
call me Hasirpad) 04:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Guyana still has a "Saffon" law on the books based the trust left by his will (mentioned in the article, I added a ref to the law). Seems notable enough.
—Noah 05:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep per the sources presented in this discussion.
-- Calidum 06:52, 27 January 2015 (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.