Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Aryee (2nd nomination)
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Patrick Aryee
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Patrick Aryee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Recreation of a previously deleted article. This is written differently enough from the first version to not qualify for immediate speedy deletion, but it is not actually bolstering his notability claim with appreciably better
WP:GNG-worthy media outlets are just glancing namechecks of his existence, not coverage that's substantively about him for the purposes of establishing notability.
As always, Wikipedia is not a place where people are automatically notable just because they have jobs -- notability is not a question of what the article says so much as it's a question of the quality of the referencing you can or can't locate to support the things the article says, and the referencing here isn't good enough. (For added bonus, the creator was explicitly told the first time what kind of sourcing is acceptable and what kind of sourcing isn't, but still came back with this anyway.) Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
]
As always, Wikipedia is not a place where people are automatically notable just because they have jobs -- notability is not a question of what the article says so much as it's a question of the quality of the referencing you can or can't locate to support the things the article says, and the referencing here isn't good enough. (For added bonus, the creator was explicitly told the first time what kind of sourcing is acceptable and what kind of sourcing isn't, but still came back with this anyway.) Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delete. I concur, passing mentions, no evidence of SIGCOV. He exists, has a career, but does not appear to meet WP:NBIO. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)]
- 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.