Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas B. Manuel

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. Stifle (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas B. Manuel[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 biography has been flagged as unsourced since the day of its creation, 15th November 2011. The article's content implies that the subject might be a notable person, but when I searched, I found only copies of our own article, content about the bridge of the same name, and someone's blog. Does someone have access to paper sources? If not then I think we should probably un-publish this somehow. —S Marshall T/C 13:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 13:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 13:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is a candidate for WP:TNT, I have no idea how this article has been up for so long. This article was clearly written by a supporter of the article's subject and is extremely non-neutral, fails WP:NPOV. Even if this passes WP:GNG, the article should be deleted because of how much the whole article favors the subject. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 14:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Oh boy. Not sure whether to approach this from a WP:TNT or a WP:Notability angle. In terms of the first, the whole article seems to be one big WP:NPOV violation to a degree where TNT wouldn't be out of place. For the second, I wasn't able to find any sources that would satisfy WP:GNG. The POV language makes it really difficult to establish what the subject's status would be w/r/t WP:NPOL, but as far as I can see the chairmanship of the Turnpike Authority is unlikely to be sufficient without WP:SIGCOV that would also then fulfill GNG. That said, if someone is willing to take on the work to actually WP:HEY this to a place where TNT is no longer called for, and finds sufficient sources to establish SIGCOV, I'll happily change my !vote to keep.-Ljleppan (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC), striken 17:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thincat (below) found a number of obits that likely reach WP:SIGCOV, so I'll change this to keep. That said, the state of the article continues to be very bad, with some of the recently added references failing verification. I'll add some maintenance tags and remove the worst POV language, but won't have time to do miracles. -Ljleppan (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry to be a nuisance but "Mr Turnpike" was quite a big noise in Florida and had quite a few obituaries published, for example.[1][2][3] And for those who deprecate obituaries he was good at publicity during his life too.[4][5][6] However, I'm not sufficiently interested to make hay before sunset. Thincat (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I've just seen he became a "7-goal man" in indoor polo.[7] That surely counts under WP:NSPORTS. Thincat (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per wp:hey and notable on several points; his leadership (accolades) building the Florida turnpike system, as mayor of a U.S. city, founder of several banks, (that went on to become part of BoA), possibly his military achievements, etc., etc. Any one of these might not necessarliy be considered notable, but put all together could be enough to make him notable. - wolf 15:50, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't check the references; the Orlando Sentinel and the Sun Sentinel are blocked in the UK (which is common with US sites that don't want to comply with our laws about privacy and consent to harvest identifying information and personal data). The blocking is probably why those sources don't show up in a search for me. If there's a consensus among people who can see them that they amount to substantial coverage then ... well, I can't withdraw the nomination because others have !voted to delete, but I would change my own !vote to "keep".—S Marshall T/C 15:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think "can't check the refs" was a reason to question refs (and !vote "delete") at AfD. What's the difference between your situation and say... a paywalled site you don't have an account for, or a book you don't have a access to? GNG states: "Sources do not have to be available online". You may not be able to withdraw the nom, but you can change your !vote to "keep", buy doing just that up above at your opening comment. (imo) - wolf 23:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local personality fails WP:GNG. KidAd • SPEAK 20:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:50, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:21, 13 March 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.