The result was delete. I expect that this closure might be contested. But we have two very different evaluations of the sources presented, either they are reliable and significant or they are PR churnalism and inadequate. In this case, I could relist the discussion hoping for a clearer consensus but I'm going to dismiss newly created accounts and base my closure on the opinions of editors who I know can properly assess the quality of the sources and whether or not they can demonstrate the notability of the article subject. According to them, they don't. No penalty for interested editors who can start over in Draft space and submit their work for an AFC review. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
BLP of a successful businessman lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. There is nothing in this article to indicate that the subject meets our notability criteria. Mccapra ( talk) 00:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I have included the notability guidelines below to ensure all editors understand and follow the guidelines.
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[1]
Shortcut
WP:SIGCOV<?/br>
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[2] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources"[3] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[4] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[5]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have a number of new IPs from Texas participating just in this AFD so I hope we can get some editors experienced in AFD discussions to offer their analysis of sources that are present in the article and brought up in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The result was delete. I expect that this closure might be contested. But we have two very different evaluations of the sources presented, either they are reliable and significant or they are PR churnalism and inadequate. In this case, I could relist the discussion hoping for a clearer consensus but I'm going to dismiss newly created accounts and base my closure on the opinions of editors who I know can properly assess the quality of the sources and whether or not they can demonstrate the notability of the article subject. According to them, they don't. No penalty for interested editors who can start over in Draft space and submit their work for an AFC review. Liz Read! Talk! 05:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
BLP of a successful businessman lacking in depth coverage in reliable independent sources. There is nothing in this article to indicate that the subject meets our notability criteria. Mccapra ( talk) 00:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I have included the notability guidelines below to ensure all editors understand and follow the guidelines.
A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.[1]
Shortcut
WP:SIGCOV<?/br>
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The book-length history of IBM by Robert Sobel is plainly non-trivial coverage of IBM.
Martin Walker's statement, in a newspaper article about Bill Clinton,[2] that "In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice" is plainly a trivial mention of that band.
"Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.
"Sources"[3] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.[4] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.[5]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We have a number of new IPs from Texas participating just in this AFD so I hope we can get some editors experienced in AFD discussions to offer their analysis of sources that are present in the article and brought up in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Liz
Read!
Talk! 01:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)