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. Joyous! | Talk 01:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lonsdale[edit]

Tom Lonsdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

BLP with primary sources. Also, weak assertion of notability - a vet, couple of minor books (according to prev AfD). (Came across this following paid editing/suspicious sock/blocked sock accounts, so inferring an element of promotion combined with borderline notability, a combination that requires scrutiny at AfD.) Widefox; talk 23:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable veterinarian and writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Preaky (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep  Nomination incorrectly implies that AfD is a forum for casting aspersions.  Nor is AfD a forum to ask if a topic is notable.  "Keep" as per previous AfD, whose closing IMO would have been better closed as a WP:NOQUORUM "keep".  Unscintillating (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as he's not satisfying any applicable notabilities and that's all that matters, especially since the article in fact emphasizes it. SwisterTwister talk 20:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - serial media commentator does not add up to notability. Very weak assertion of notability; article pretty much describes Lonsdale as a run-of-the-mill academic, and the refs back that up - all either self-published, non-independent or routine coverage. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, AfD is pretty much solely a forum to ask if a topic is notable. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why are you arguing?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, WP:NOQUORUM suggests three outcomes - relisting, close with no-consensus (which is what happened), or accept nominator's preference ("soft delete"). There is no such thing as a "no quorum keep". --Yeti Hunter (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, WP:NOQUORUM states, "The discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include, but are not limited to:", and then four bullet points follow, not three.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • ... being relist, no-consensus close, and two versions of delete (soft delete and accept nominator's preference) - very well, let's call it four. In any case NOQUORUM cannot be used to support a keep position.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The logic of the reasoning is that "the closer's discretion and good judgement" don't allow a 'keep' result for an AfD? 

          As for the delete argument, what is an "assertion of notability".  Is that something like fame or importance, that Wikipedia WP:N doesn't consider as a key measure when determining notability?  As per WP:N, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity..."  Another issue with the argument is that "routine coverage" implies WP:GNG coverage.  I think that what Wikipedia cares about more than fame or importance, is reliability for our readers, including for obscure topics.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

          • Closing admin could indeed utilise judgement to keep in a NOQUORUM situation (rare though that is), however that would hold no weight in future AfDs which achieve greater participation. An "assertion of notability" is basically a statement within the article that indicates that the article subject would be presumed to meet the GNG - nothing necessarily to do with fame or popularity, though they can be indicators. The closest this article gets is the assertion that Lonsdale has frequently been interviewed by reliable(ish) media sources, which is an assertion of notability under WP:ENT. Lonsdale is not the subject of these sources, but rather a participant - they are therefore not independent of the subject, and cannot be used to establish notability. He fails WP:ENT and WP:PROF and, most importantly, WP:GNG. There's really not much more to it than that. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2016 (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.