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 as a non-notable biography, WP:BIO refers. (aeropagitica) 18:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing of notability given; a bio Akihabara 17:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seemed like an article on an important person that should be in Wikipedia, but after following up the links at the bottom, I'm not so sure. The article appears to be partly cribbed (parts word for word with just a change of tense) from the the first reference, a 32 year old church newsletter. Apart from that, I can only verify that he was at the Hong Kong College on whose website he is listed as stated. But, the link gven to Keele University Alumni Obituaries Page does not work. This does though: [[1]] but his name not does not appear there or anywhere else on the Keele University site. The Conservancy Association has no mention of him (granted, he has been dead six years). What can this mean? Emeraude 19:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Although there is some assertion of notability in the article, there seems to be nothing to verify it, certainly nothing linked to this orphaned dead-end article. If he were a significant part of the history of the Conservancy Association, there would have been at least a slight mention of him in the external sites... or in the Conservancy Association Wikipedia article. DeleteB.Wind 02:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I am still confused as to how this article got on Wikipedia. Robert Rayne was my grandfather and neither myself nor my father knew anything about it until I stumbled across it on a Google search. We can both vouch for pretty much everything in the article and I am in the process of re-writing it to expand on his life much of which has been missed off. Dont Delete Admiral007 21:24, 13 Dec 2006
Per Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy I would strongly suggest that neither you nor your father (as members of the immediate family of the subject of the article) do the rewrite, but instead have a third party not affiliated with the family to add the pieces you want to add and remove any perceived inaccuracies. I'd also suggest that if there are sufficient omissions to Conservancy Association that you could "fill the holes" without any WP:COI problems if you have no direct affiliation with the group. Don't overlook the need for attribution for verification! B.Wind 00:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Larry V (talk | contribs) 23:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Comes close, but "early men's warden" (a kind of residential dean) isn't notability, president of a little-known college for less than a year isn't quite, and co-founder of a local conservancy association isn't enough for me. --Dhartung | Talk 01:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dont Delete This article does not come close to outlining my grandfather's wholelife. Many parts have been missed out or not properly explained. Whilst it is still listed I stand a chance of contacting the person who wrote it in the first place and supplying them with more information to add to the article. Admiral007 17:09, 17 December 2006 GMT
You should be able to add enough to the article to support notability yourself. Akihabara 20:11, 17 December 2006 (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.