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. Kurykh (talk) 01:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Haswell

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of a television meteorologist, which is written like a prosified résumé rather than an encyclopedia article and referenced entirely to primary sources with zero evidence of reliable source coverage about him in media. While there are valid notability claims here that would get him into Wikipedia if the article could be sourced properly, there's nothing here that entitles him to an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of a demonstrable WP:GNG pass. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The vigilante police force of an open community encyclopedia has arrived... Jkmarold55 (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a free-for-all site where anything or anyone is entitled to an article just because they exist. Certain specific standards of reliable sourceability have to be attained before an article is allowed to exist, and enforcing those standards is not "vigilantism" — it's how the project works, and as a site administrator it's part of my job description. Bearcat (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:RESUME tone and WP:N not met, along with Bearcat's RS concerns. I'm beginning to think that the article creator may either be an agent for their subjects or is a WITI or Tribune Media employee, which would definitely trigger conflict of interest concerns. Nate • (chatter) 21:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Jkmarold isn't the creator in this instance — he's just raising stink because I nominated it as a response to his WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that Katrina Cravy has to be kept because this exists. This article was created by a user named "Tanyaalidina", not by Jkmarold. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, fair enough. I'm surprised this article has existed for so long to begin with. Nate • (chatter) 22:05, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom. In the word "vigilante" there is also the word "vigilant" and thanks to the vigilance of people like Jkmarold here pages that should not be on wikipedia get nominated for deletion and as he said it is even less notable than the pages he creates. I suggest he spends a bit of time doing new pages patrolling he seems to have a knack for digging out non notable articles. Domdeparis (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wish we could have slightly lower inclusion standards, partly because I am convinced that Taniela B. Wakolo is actually notable. However I am going to hold off on creating an article on Wakolo until I can find some clearly non-LDS Church linked sources on him. This may take a while, since I also am not fluent in Fijian, and some may be in Fijian. However I have seen way too many overly promotional articles on people who are clearly not notable and realized we cannot adequately maintain even the articles we have with the current project participation level. Unlike some, I realize Wikipedia is not meant to be LinkedIn, and so we need standards of actual notability and not just exclusion of things that are hoaxes or unverifiable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we almost always delete local newscasters and producers, even when they win a local Emmy. Otherwise, we'd have hundreds of such articles, such as Richard Bagala and Fred Cwerner. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are lists, passing references, an IMDB page and dead links. The only substantive reference other than the non-RS IMDB, is a one-paragraph announcement in a local trade newsletter. That in not the stuff of notability. Agricolae (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2017 (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.