Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Gregory Pestana

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 no consensus. Star Mississippi 17:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Gregory Pestana

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Usher of the Second Magistrate's Court in Singapore is not a position that confers notability. There is press coverage of the subject but this is “local” in the context of the time and it does not amount to a GNG pass. Mccapra (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Singapore. Mccapra (talk) 02:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to this, the Malaya Tribune was distributed across Malaya, Siam, Java, Sumatra and Borneo, and the Morning Tribune was also distributed in Johor. According to this, the Saturday Tribune was also published in Ipoh, Penang and Kuala Lumpur. According to this, The Straits Times also had offices in London and Kuala Lumpur. Would the sources from the Morning Tribune, the Malaya Tribune, the Sunday Tribune and The Straits Times be enough to pass GNG? Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is shown through significant coverage, as noted above by Somebodyidkfkdt, for the subject in the reporting by the Morning Tribune, Malaya Tribune, Sunday Tribune and The Straits Times. Meets WP:GNG to show notability and passes basic criteria for WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources 3 to 7 are trivial coverage of his death where each article has a single paragraph announcing his death while the rest are lengthy records of who turned up at his funeral wake. Source 1 and 2 has some coverage but the articles are only due to his retirement. This does not present WP:SIGCOV While the newspapers are regional in nature, the coverage is entirely local to Singapore. The article will be WP:RUNOFTHEMILL with no establishment of notability of the BLP subject. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 06:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is an essay, and source 3 also gives significant coverage. WP:AUD states that regional media is a strong indicator of notability. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 07:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source 3
Paragraph 1 - 1 sentence mentioning subject has died.

Paragraph 2 - 2 sentences mentioning his age and family and funeral details.

Paragraph 3 - 1 sentence mentioning his retirement and his previous job.

Paragraph 4 - 1 sentence mentioning his hobby.
It failed to provide any significant coverage of subject beside a typical obituary of death time/place, family, past job and hobby. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 07:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the rest of the sources are not significant coverage, wouldn't he then be able to pass WP:BASIC, since there are five sources which aren't significant? Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources 3 to 7 are still trivial coverage which would not amount to WP:BASIC (just imagine putting up obituary notices in multiple papers in different countries). Also, if a person is notable, there should be coverage over his life, not only at retirement and death. Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 01:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, if he wasn't notable, there would not be coverage of his retirement. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG on coverage and WP:JUDGE on role in life. Seems relatively uncontroversially so to me in both cases... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As the article's creator, I am not sure if I am allowed to do this, if I am not, can someone just strike out the keep? I believe the first two sources count towards GNG as they are both regional papers and are about the subject. I think the other five sources together also count towards notability per WP:BASIC. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 5 July 2022 (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.