Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleb Laieski


 * 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, uncontested. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Caleb Laieski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP, with definite advertorial overtones, of a person whose strongest claim of notability is having been a staffer in a mayor's office. The article has actually been tagged WP:AUTOBIO by another editor — and while I'm not entirely sure that the evidence for that is as airtight as the tagger believes, it certainly does read an awful lot like the kind of "about me" puff blurb that could be posted to a person's own self-published website. The sourcing, meanwhile, is parked entirely on an alternative weekly newspaper and an online-only magazine that doesn't unequivocally pass the dividing line between the kind of blogs that we can accept for sourcing and the kind that we can't — so these sources would be acceptable for some supplementary confirmation of facts after the topic had already been vaulted over WP:GNG by better referencing, but neither of them can carry GNG if they're the best you can do for sourcing. As always, a person does not gain an automatic entitlement to keep a PR-toned profile on Wikipedia just because a few sources can be provided to verify that he exists — there would have to be a lot more coverage, a lot more substance and a lot less (possibly self-)promotional puffery than this to get him over the bar. And on a Google search, the better sourcing that I am able to locate (a) is still exclusively local to the place where he was living at the time of that coverage, and (b) poses BLP sensitivities of the "criminal allegation without conviction" kind that Wikipedia has no business touching with a ten-foot pole per WP:PERP. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - 's in-depth and accurate analysis leaves little else to state.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:00, 31 January 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.