Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cecil Vernon Lindo


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Cecil Vernon Lindo

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Article does not meet GNG or NBIO. No indication of notability. Sources are not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.  // Timothy :: talk  02:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Given the extent of coverage cited, why isn’t this a GNG pass? Mccapra (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Costa Rica,  and Jamaica. AllyD (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment, I'm completely distressed at this, because this is an interesting article, and is much more likely to be accurate than most of the rest of Wikipedia. But in answer to 's question, I'm guessing the problem is that the vast majority of it is supported by primary sources, so in effect, most of the article looks like a really high-quality piece of original research. It should be published somewhere. I am leaning towards a weak keep based on the fact that the first three references aren't primary, and three's a keep, right? But mostly I'm leaning keep because I come to Wikipedia to learn something about people who mattered, and I much preferred reading this article to the endless, drivellingly endless PR pieces of minor politicians, minor Indian civil servants, minor films and their minor actors, minor entrepreneurs, forgettable beauty pageant winners, and other minors who come here looking for self-validation and promotion to major-hood. I know that's irrelevant in WP terms, but I'm a human. I actually enjoyed reading this article. Elemimele (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Of all the Lindos, this is one of two for whom a case can be made for notable. Athel cb (talk) 12:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep The nominator nominated 8 articles of members on the Lindo family in a 10 minute span and used the exact word-for-word deletion rationale for all of them. Of the subjects with "No indication of notability", least 2 were members of Jamaican Parliament and one was the Governor of Dominica for seven years. If the nominator would provide an article-specific rationale I will consider changing my vote but currently this looks like a mass-AfD with little WP:BEFORE research or even reading of the articles that are being nominated. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Leaning keep, comment Could the nominator please state less generically why they think WP:GNG is not met? The article has lots of sources, several offline, for which we should assume good faith for. Has each of them been thoroughly assessed? CT55555 (talk) 03:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep in the absence of a good rationale for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2023 (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.