Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Robles

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. WP:BLPDELETE with a side order of copyvio j⚛e decker ^talk 06:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Robles

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

Subject of much edit warring (and see OTRS 2014102010014189 if you have access) - no inline references to show notability. Additional Citation banner has been there for years. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any of the founded US non-profits in the usual sources (Guidestar). The latest organization appears to be in South AfricaLaMona (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC), which at least should be noted in the article. The last three of the references are dead links. The article would need considerable work to meet notability standards. I would change my vote if it were significantly upgraded with third party references. Oddly, it doesn't mention that he wrote two books about Schweitzer. Those would not establish notability, but they appear prominently in search engine results. Weighting against this article is that it is the work of a single purpose account. The edit-warring account calling itself "Harold Robles" wrote some colorful text but unfortunately provided no references. I didn't look extensively but I didn't run across anything supporting those additions to the article. LaMona (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:47, 4 November 2014 (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.