Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert N. Rooks

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 speedy delete. Deleted as G10: negative, unsourced BLP. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Robert N. Rooks

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

There is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Sources include court documents (which are ideally reliable sources for verifying the facts of convictions, but of no use at all in showing notability), trivial news reports in obscure publications, press releases, and sources that are not verifiable online. If this is the best anyone can do, then the subject of the article is not notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to those reviewing this article : The article is currently blanked due to alleged BLP violations. Please view this diff for evaluation purposes Gaijin42 (talk)

Delete per nomination, nothing to add. ukexpat (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete it dose appear that the sources referring to rooks directly are press releases etc. However, "not available on the internet" is not a WP:V failure, so if someone wants to make a claim on the 3rd party stuff that isn't available online, I'm listening. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course perfectly right in saying that "not available on the internet" is not a WP:V failure. I am guilty of carelessness in how I expressed myself. What I meant, and what I should have written, was "Sources include court documents ... press releases. There are other sources too, but since they are not available online, I have not been able to assess their quality." However, I really do think that if this person were notable then, in view of the sort of thing reported in the article, there would have been reports of it in reliable online sources, such as the web archives of significant newspapers, and it seems there aren't any. (I base that statement not only on the fact that whoever has been trying really hard to get this content kept in the article has failed to produce any such sources, but also the fact that i have searched and not found any.) JamesBWatson (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I found substantial coverage of this individual's business activities including: this article. He's also been included in some building tranfers in the Fresno area. That some of the business activities appear to have been illegal makes it all the more important that the subject be covered. Protecting living people cuts more than one way. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... I see not the above cited is an official press release of sorts. I will have to look a bit deeper. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I cannot find substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. He is mentioned and covered in pasing a bit in the SF Weekly piece and there are some official releases and court docs, but until the man and his apparent history of fraudulent activity are covered in reliable independent sources I don't think we can keep the article. If someone can find coverage in a reliable source I am happy to reconsider. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE The full article as it existed can only be viewed in the article history as it has been blanked by an editor as a BLP violation. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:35, 23 October 2013 (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.