Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. David Archibald

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Sandstein 20:04, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

H. David Archibald (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)

Biography of a person notable only as founder and executive director of an organization that does not have an article, referenced only to an obituary on legacy.com. This is not a notability-conferring source in and of itself, however, as it simply aggregates every paid inclusion death notice published in any participating newspaper, regardless of notability or lack thereof, and founding a non-notable organization is not an "inherent" notability freebie that automatically exempts a person from having to be referenced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. 01:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 13:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Getting named to the Order of Canada is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts a person from having to clear WP:GNG. It counts as a notability claim if, and only if, the person can be shown as the subject of enough media coverage to pass GNG for whatever it was they did to earn that distinction — but the presence of an OC after his name is not an automatic inclusion freebie that exempts him from ever having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why it wouldn't at least be a trigger to slow down, and put up any amount of templates encouraging expansion, sourcing, etc. The first instinct should not be delete. -- Zanimum (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Howzabout maybe I already did a WP:BEFORE check to see if I could find enough quality sourcing to salvage it? What's been added since the nomination is not coverage about him, but coverage which quotes him speaking in articles about something other than him — which is not notability-building sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the matter of legacy.com - the obituary was published in the Toronto Star and delivered via Legacy.com; I've updated the citation to reflect this. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. It's still the paid-inclusion "every single person who died at all, regardless of their notability or lack thereof" section in the Toronto Star classifieds, so it is not a notability-assisting source just because it's in the Toronto Star. If the Toronto Star had assigned a journalist to write a news story about his death, that would count for something (but still not for enough all by itself as the article's only source), but the strictly WP:ROUTINE paid-inclusion death notice in the classifieds counts for nothing. Bearcat (talk) 16:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the matter of the 'organization not having an article', it has a section in an article --> Centre_for_Addiction_and_Mental_Health#Addiction Research Foundation. I've updated the article accordingly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:25, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 11:43, 24 May 2018 (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.