Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Charles Robinson


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Anthony Charles Robinson

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable, receiving an OBE, and the lowest level is not enough. No other claims of notability. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph (talk)  14:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep clearly notable. It's ironic for someone using the honorific prefix "Sir" to claim that someone received "the lowest level" of OBE. There are no graduations in an OBE ("Officer of the Order of the British Empire"), and OBE is not the lowest grade in the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (that would be "MBE"). The subject's other reasons for notability were explained at length by RexxS, in WP:ANI, recently. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've been through this.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:15, 15 August 2016 (UTC))
 * Keep. I thank for bringing the article here as testing its notability is helpful in calibrating the work done at AFC. My keep does not rely on WP:ANYBIO - although I do consider OBE a not-insignificant award - but on WP:GNG "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material ... no fixed number of sources required ... but multiple sources are generally expected". In the source, Robinson is the main topic. In the source , Robinson has a section covering an interview with him. Two decent examples of coverage in major newspapers is sufficient to meet GNG. --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. KGirlTrucker81talk what I'm been doing 18:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep presumed notable per WP:GNG. Multiple instances of in-depth coverage from reliable, independent sources.    78.26   (spin me / revolutions) 21:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly adequate indicia of notability, meets WP:N.   Montanabw (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly notable, agree with comments above. LazyLilac (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.