Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Webster (orator)

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 keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Webster (orator)[edit]

[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)

This article should be deleted because this person was not notable in any way at all. He had no career, was not known to the general public and did nothing of any note. In other words, he doesn't pass the notability test.Sardaka (talk) 10:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD has been formalized per Wikipedia:Help_desk#John_Webster_(orator). –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 14:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article indicate that he passes WP:GNG, which is the minimum standard for notability. Looks fine to me. --Jayron 32 16:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Sardaka, you cite "the notability test". Which notability test would that be? -- Hoary (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A comment in the article's talk page implies that the nominator knew the subject of the article and didn't like him. That is not a valid reason for deletion. I'd never heard of this guy, but he has the coverage in RS that he needs for an article here. Being "known to the general public" (how would you determine that anyway?) is not the test we apply. Chuntuk (talk) 08:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the comment consists of three quasi-sentences, of which the first is "Probably wouldn't pass the notability test if anyone cared to apply it, if they had nothing better to do." Again, Sardaka cites "the notability test" -- but of course as it was on 9 November 2015. Well, here we have WP:Notability (people) of that time. Item 1 within its nutshellized version: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Between 2015 and now, "he or she has" has become "they have", but it's otherwise unchanged. Having no career, not being known to the general public, and doing nothing of any note are perhaps criteria of Sardaka's invention. -- Hoary (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's plenty of reliable sources (and I'm not surprised, this sounds like a wacky dude!) BuySomeApples (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Orotundity is not a reason to delete, but the article was and I think still is somewhat windy. I've streamlined it a little; others are welcome to correct or continue my work. -- Hoary (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multiple sources are given asserting that the person is notable. Thus, the nominator's reasons for deleting the article do not hold water. Gaff (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2021 (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.