Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quentin koromete

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. — Aitias // discussion 23:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quentin koromete

The person exists, but there appears to be very little material available about him online. The sites www.utnz.org.nz (currently down) and www.homerescue.org.nz appear to be controlled by him or his organisation. If he was instrumental in the challenge to the Seabed and Foreshore legislation as claimed, there should be a lot more material available on him. Delete gadfium 23:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find material justifying this article. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 23:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable, no results from the NZ Herald or Stuff websites, one trivial mention from NZLII. XLerate (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Collectively, his activities seem to hint at notability, possibly as an activist. But there is still insufficient coverage in secondary sources, for either "Quentin Koromete" or "Quentin Goldsmith", to meet notability guidelines for a Wikipedia biography. Unless greater coverage on his activities emerges, the article should probably be deleted. – Liveste (talk • edits) 03:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BLP/WP:N requirements not met from the article sources. Searches online have turned up zip and, as User:gadfium notes, the claims made would have reasonably been expected to generate some. As a suggestion though, the author may instead consider whether the organisation that Koromete is involved with has the required notability (with necessary sources etc) for an article, rather than focussing on an individual. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2009 (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.