Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Black


 * 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. Tone 20:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Black

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a lawyer and political candidate, whose claims of notability are not reliably sourced. This is referenced almost entirely to primary and unreliable sources, and the only reference that's anything like a reliable source just glancingly namechecks his existence a couple of times in an article that isn't about him. Nothing here is "inherently" notable for the purposes of guaranteeing him a Wikipedia article just because he exists, but the sources simply aren't cutting it in terms of getting him over WP:GNG. This was a good faith creation in 2005, but Wikipedia's inclusion and sourcing standards have changed too much in the past 14 years and this article isn't meeting them anymore. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree the article needs a major rewrite with a lot of content taken out and better sourcing, but there’s no doubt that sources are plentiful. Mccapra (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't just say that sources are plentiful, because there aren't good sources in the article and my own WP:BEFORE efforts failed to find nearly enough sources that were any better. Sure, it's possible that better sources may exist somewhere else — nobody on Wikipedia has a completely unfettered ability to locate every valid source that exists on earth, and each person has access to a different combination of resources, so it's entirely possible that one person can find sources that another person wasn't able to. But if you're invoking an WP:NEXIST argument, then you have to show hard evidence of what other sources you're finding, and it's not enough to just say that sources are plentiful if you don't show some evidence of those plentiful sources. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Among what I could find are 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mccapra (talk) 22:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Both BBC links are just glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things or people, not coverage about him that would constitute support for his notability; and the book just takes me to a "you have reached a page that is unavailable for viewing" error, making it completely impossible for me to verify whether it constitutes substantive coverage or just another glancing namecheck. The Toronto Star source is good, but isn't in and of itself enough if the other three aren't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree the tone is inappropriate and promotional but on rereading your nomination, where you say claims of notability are not well sourced, I wonder if you mean that we can’t really be sure that he was an advocate in the Rwanda and Yugoslavia trials? If you think there is no sound basis for believing he had these roles then I see why you think his notability is doubtful. If you are satisfied he did have these roles, I’m not clear why you think the claim of notability is not well sourced. There may be specific details that lack sources but the overall picture isn’t in doubt, or is it? Mccapra (talk) 22:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability, for Wikipedia purposes, is not a question of what the article says, it's a question of how well the article references what it says. The notability test he has to pass, to qualify for an article on here, does not hinge on simply being able to offer technical verification that he exists, in primary sources and blogs and brief mentions of his existence in coverage of other things or people — it hinges on the extent to which his work did or didn't result in reliable sources producing and publishing content that has him as its subject: journalism about him in real media, published books about him, and on and so forth. It's not his job titles that are in question — it's whether he has the depth of reliable source coverage about his work needed to clear WP:GNG as notable for holding any given job title. No job title, not even "King of the World", ever hands anybody an instant notability freebie that would exempt them from having to have been covered by the media in that role before they qualify to have a Wikipedia article because of it. Bearcat (talk) 13:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete- There is a lack of sourcing for this. A few quotes in a BBC article is not significant coverage.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL due to a complete lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:36, 18 June 2019 (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.