Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lawrence Frankopan (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. I do not see policy-based arguments in the discussion that the person is notable, and plenty that he is not. The previous discussion also resulted in delete. No prejudice against recreation provided the future article will be based on reliable sources.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Frankopan[edit]

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

Doesn't meet our notability requirements for people. There are currently no independent sources providing significant coverage of the person referenced in the article. A search for sources turned up some brief mentions about managing tennis players e.g. [1] [2] but these fall way short of what would be required. SmartSE (talk) 11:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two sources you mentioned for tennis firmly indicate that users would find it useful to be able to look up who this person is.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but as they are the only sources the article would boil down to "Lawrence Frankopan is a tennis player manager who has managed X and Y" - hardly encyclopedic. SmartSE (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the only sources - though they are the ones that made it clear to me why people would find a biography of the man on Wikipedia to be useful to them.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Users would find it useful to be able to look up who this person is" is not a reason for keeping, per Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Maybe it should be, and you are welcome to try to get the policies and guidelines changed, but as long as we are working to the present guidelines, "there are a couple of brief mentions of him that make me think some people might like to look him up" cuts no ice. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally fails to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. Scarcely any of the sources cited in the article even mentions "Lawrence Frankopan" (only one does, if I remember correctly). Nothing found on searching gives significant coverage. (Judging by the editing history of the single purpose account that created the article, it is part of attempt to use Wikipedia to promote a certain family and its members. The "references" look like a classic case of "if I stuff my article with lots of references, it will look as though the subject is notable, no matter how irrelevant those references are".) JamesBWatson (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to House of Frankopan -- The article appears almost entirely to be about his relatives and connections, some of whom are distinguished, but that sort of material properly belongs in a family article, such as that. It is possible there is some material to be merged. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It is possible there is some material to be merged" is not a reason for merging, though "there is some material to be merged" would be. Can you indicate what content is worth merging? If not, no merge is possible. In my experience, 90% of times when an AfD discussion closes as "merge", nobody actually merges anything, and the article just stays there for months or years, despite a consensus that it should not do so. If you actually have a suggestion as to what to merge, that will be a different matter, but at present virtually the only content of the article that is sourced is not about Lawrence Frankopan at all, but just about other members of the family, who are either already mentioned in House of Frankopan, or can be added to it independently of the article Lawrence Frankopan. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHow can you waste time on trying to delete, for a second time, this useful entry? It is so clear that there are some people out there who have a problem with the Frankopan family and repeatedly try to trip up members in various ways. I even recognize some pseudonyms who have appeared in other contexts. Have you nothing else to do in your lives? Users would certainly find it useful to find out details about this person. What is wikipedia all about? There are some entries of far less worthy persons. If you do not think that wkiipedia should not have an entry for a young man who manages Stan Wawrinka who nearly beat the number one in the world a few weeks ago, you certainly have a problem with what 'notability' means and what the wikipedia guidelines imply.--Official Lists (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I too think that the current notability guidelines could be improved. However, this discussion will be closed by an administrator who will assess it on the basis of those current guidelines, and he/she should give little if any weight to a comment which says, in effect "keep, because I think the current notability guidelines are wrong". Also, ad hominem attacks on what you suspect are the motives of those you disagree with will not be likely to further your case, and nor will remarks like remarks like "Have you nothing else to do in your lives?". JamesBWatson (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2013 (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.