Talk:Errol Povah

I added a tag for deletion due to this person not meeting the requirements for notability in Wikipedia. As well, the outside links offered are direct links to his own projects, and only two outside sources at all are mentioned. This article almost looks like a resume made by the subject in question, and I might even consider adding a neutrality tag. 24.80.104.82 (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I had to add a POV tag. Take for instance He stood trial, and was given an absolute discharge. The transcript of the trial is available on the Airspace Action on Smoking and Health site. Other than it linking directly to a trial transcript, this is clearly written with emotional language. and was an effort to build support for the eradication of tobacco from this planet. This line for sure has to be cleaned up for style. This article is made up of short two or three sentence paragraphs, all written like bullet points in a resume. Either this page needs a major rewrite for style and neutrality, or deleted as a self-promotional resume of a virtually unknown protestor.....24.80.104.82 (talk) 08:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Oook, it seems like the page creator called this "vandalism" and undid what an administrator decided, without making any reasoning in the talk page. I'll reset it back to what the administrator set, if you have an issue please mention it in this talk page. 24.80.104.82 (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Further reasoning to why this subject does not meet the notability; A Google search reveals mostly his own websites, a few articles from small town papers, and one or two articles in a large paper. This subject is not notable. Even in the activist community in Vancouver he seems to be little known. User:Prescottbush please amend this article or this talk page as to how this subject is notable. 24.80.104.82 (talk) 04:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

My criteria for tagging this article is from Wikipedia's guidelines on notability Wiki:Notability Succinctly, the first paragraph: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. People who meet the basic criteria may be considered notable without meeting the additional criteria below. Articles may still not be created for such people if they fall under exclusionary criteria, such as being notable only for a single event, or such as those listed in What Wikipedia is not.

This subject clearly fails at these criteria. Frankly I'm here because I saw his name in the newspaper and looked him up 'cause I was interested, and saw that he had a wikipedia article! But look at the article, the first link is his personal blog which has been updated only once in the last 3 years; and the rest reads like a LinkedIn resume... Please see What Wikipedia is not for more explanation. 24.80.104.82 (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No, 24.80.104.82 did NOT add a tag for deletion. Instead, he just removed the entire content of the article, and put in a redirection to the Airspace Action on Smoking and Health page. This is contrary to the normal process for deleting articles. If 24.80.104.82 had actually read the article, he would have known that less than half of the article's content was about Airspace Action on Smoking and Health, and to claim otherwise would be a lie. Much of the article was about the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. Prescottbush (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Prescottbush I only reverted to the original decision of the administrator who made a decision on my tag for deletion. Please see the edit histories. 24.80.104.82 (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

OOOkay, so now that absolutely nothing was addressed except for this user screaming "vandal" at me, I'll just let him have his article. But I must stress that Wikipedia is not an advertising medium for unknown people. So good day, enjoy yourself. 24.80.104.82 (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Another lie, vandal. What part of "This is contrary to the normal process for deleting articles" did you not understand? Prescottbush (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Yep. I'm done with you. Look at the edit histories. Your subject, who I am now seriously thinking is you yourself, is not notable. Thank you and good night. 24.80.104.82 (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Redirecting an article to a related topic is not "deletion", and is not contrary to any Wikipedia policy. Prescottbush, that line of attack ends immediately — and speaking as an administrator, trust me that you'll find yourself on the business end of a 24-hour edit block if I see one more word of such an argument out of you again. Bearcat (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)