Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robb Douglass
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. Wifione Message 10:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Robb Douglass (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)
This is a strange one - please consider before opining. This nomination is about verifiability not notability. I've no doubt that the website was probably notable, and the creator probably and sadly prematurely died (or at least not much doubt). There's stacks of it on forums. However, I can't verify this for any reliable sources. The links are dead - but other than the FHM one wouldn't be reliable even if they weren't and the FHM one doesn't appear to have been about the creator at all. Happy to be proved wrong here, but we need verifiability not probable truth. Scott Mac 12:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I agree this is a very strange case. Douglass was certainly notable and verifiable at the time the article was created (I seem to remember it passed a speedy delete at the time) but with the original supporting references now deadlinks and nothing current coming up in any searches I am not sure where that leaves us. Does an article that is verifiable at the time of creation simply become unverifiable (and therefore deletable) if/when all the valid references become deadlinks? 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 13:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the links were live, two are self-references anyway, so all you'd have is one FHM source, that isn't apparently about Douglas at all. That doesn't meet the "multiple secondary sources" threshold for notability, nevermind being verification. Unless someone can find some reliable sourcing here, this looks like a delete.--Scott Mac 13:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kinda sad, but true ... looks like a delete. 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 15:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the links were live, two are self-references anyway, so all you'd have is one FHM source, that isn't apparently about Douglas at all. That doesn't meet the "multiple secondary sources" threshold for notability, nevermind being verification. Unless someone can find some reliable sourcing here, this looks like a delete.--Scott Mac 13:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Hardly notable and lacking references. LogicalCreator (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2012 (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.