Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Will Fowles

: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. Note to User:Aoziwe, it's not useful in a deletion discussion to assert that sources exist, but not cite any of them. Given that you didn't provide any specific sources, I was forced to discount your argument. If you think you can find sources (and are willing to commit to doing the work), let me know and I'll restore this to draft space for you to work on. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

=[[:Will Fowles]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Will Fowles}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Will_Fowles Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Will Fowles}})

Non-notable multiple-time failed political candidate. Very surprised the article has lasted as long as it has. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:29, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 01:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep but not (only) as a (as yet unsuccessful) politician. I was surprised about how much independent general referencing about the subject there is. This person has a finger in many pies (multiple different events) and gets more than just mentions for them. There is sufficient WP:NEXIST to satisfy WP:GNG, even if likely to fail any specific NSUBJECT. There is readily available material to add to the article. Aoziwe (talk) 12:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete, but open to convincing. I've thought about nominating this before, but that Age article - which is definitely in-depth - always gave me pause. But then I was surprised by how little else there was in the way of serious coverage, so I'm inclined to think this is a straightforward case after all. The MCC business provoked a bit of coverage but there's really not much else that I saw. I would like to see the sources {{ping|Aoziwe}} mentioned above - I didn't find much that was useful, but perhaps I wasn't looking in the right places. Frickeg (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

::I suspect from what you have written that we are looking at the same material. Yes there are not many sources which by themselves standalone as indepth material in their own right, but I felt the lesser material when accumulated was sufficient to keep the article and indeed add to it in some areas. There is certainly a lot more material than many other articles rely on. Aoziwe (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.