Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhisiart Tal-e-bot (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. Those editors in favour of keeping the article failed to show that the topic meets any notability guidelines, or to argue that the notability issue was mitigated by other factors. Skomorokh 16:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhisiart Tal-e-bot

This article managed to slip through the net last time (it was deleted from the French and other Wikipedias), but I'm not sure it should have been allowed to stay here. The article is a WP:VANITY article; Cymrukernow the creator and main contributor is Rhisiart Tal-e-bot. Information only he could know fills most of the content of the article. The only sources used in the article for information is a minor pressure group which Tal-e-bot himself writes for (including a personal Yahoo Group). The other information which Tal-e-bot has put in the article in unreferencable, because he is not WP:NOTABLE enough to have such biographical information published in mainstream media sources. He works as a school teacher and has never been elected to any post anywhere in the UK, not even as a village parish councillor failing WP:POLITICIAN in an epic manner. Yorkshirian (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. This article is, as the nominator correctly asserts, is nothing but a vanity article for its creator. Giant Snowman 15:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see that the response time is slow, but the article violates most rules here about self-promotion and sociopolitical activism via Wikipedia. Perhaps admins don't take Yorkshirian seriously. After all, he has enough arseholes chewing him a new one that none can be arsed with him. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 11:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - User is now blocked indefinitely and a suspected sockpuppet. --Joowwww (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually I blocked him for being disruptive, although he has certainly used multiple socks in the past (but not in this page) Theresa Knott | token threats 23:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for reasons stated above BritishWatcher (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per previous AfD. COI is not a reason to delete. BigDunc 14:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per previous AfD. The article does indeed have a number of issues which need addressing, but it seems to me to satisfy wikipedia notability requirements. I only came across this because I noticed the rather uncommon name in the Welsh activists category: perhaps if the article had been put in more categories it might have come to the attention of more editors and have been improved by now (I've added the glaringly obvious year and place of birth cats, for starters). Enaidmawr (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: "seems to"? it fails absolutely every single one of our WP:GNG requirements. The only biographical sources are from ones which Tal-e-bot has placed on the internet in his Yahoo and other groups, the rest is just information he himself put in the article which are not in any media source. Complete vanity article of a nobody. - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments Why else would this be acceptable use of Wikipedia, when other political groups are disallowed from hijacking it as a propaganda dispenser? Surely, if this met notability, then there would be independent sources showing this. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All statements without a reference have been removed, it should conform to WP:BLP. --Joowwww (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still fails every single point in the WP:GNG, even after culling. Do you have a rationale as to how the article would pass our policies. These are the ones it most specifically fails;

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.[2]
"Sources,"[3] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.[4]
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." - Yorkshirian (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. —BigDunc 12:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —BigDunc 12:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even after the cleanup the sources are virtually all to the subject's own website, which doesn't qualify as a reliable, published source. This may be a surmountable problem, and deletion is not a method of cleanup, but as this is a biography of a living person we have another whole can of worms to deal with. Bottom line: if reliable sources can be provided by the close of this AfD, then by all means keep; if not, there's no answer but to delete.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All references are either self-published or trivial. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:18, 10 August 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.