Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Harquail


 * 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 procedural close. Several users have stated that these subjects (and the Loma Alto de la Bandera article) are too unrelated to bundle together. Additionally, not much weight can be given to the sole delete !vote in the discussion (after the nomination), because a simple review of the user's contributions shows that the user !voted in several discussions in rapid succession during this time period, including !voting in a discussion one minute before this one and in another one minute after, which suggests drive-by !voting without source searching having actually occurred. As this nomination lacked Find sources templates for all but one subject, it's highly unlikely that each name was copied into a search engine with searches then being performed (such as in GNews and Gbooks) relative to the timeframe of the user's overall contributions during this time period. Furthermore, as per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles. No prejudice against speedy renomination using separate nominations for each subject/topic. North America1000 03:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

David Harquail

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable businessman, only link is to company biography, fails WP:NPEOPLE and WP:GNG. Using AfD as opposed to "lower" deletion forms because I am also bundling the following articles into this AfD for the same reasons:

Regards, Dr Strauss   talk  12:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how bundling here can work: these are different, unrelated people. You've bundled 15 people from different parts of the world. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Wait, I see: the additional connection is that they were all created by one editor, . But you didn't notify him from from what I can see? If not, that seems to me to be rather bad form, to mass nominate 15 articles and not inform him. Well he knows now if he didn't before. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Problem is, the way you've done it omits the standard header with the Google search links for all but top name. It's vitally important for you and anyone !voting at this AFD to do their WP:BEFORE work and check online if there are reliable sources for each and every name. The way you have structured this doesn't seem to easily allow this. Therefore, I have no choice but to offer a procedural oppose at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, forgot to do that: Twinkle isn't working for me at the moment - pinging . Apologies for that oversight.   Dr Strauss   talk  13:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'd already pinged him. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note I hate to break it to you, but one of the bundled articles isn't about a person. I'm unable to !vote because of this oversight. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all BLP rules that articles on living people need to be well sourced should be respected. No one has presented any evidence that any of these people or other articles cover a notable subject. Why not? Because they do not do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you look at every single one of these articles before voting? Exemplo347 (talk) 21:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course I did and they are all one source junk articles that show no indication of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So the fact that one of them is about a mountain, not a person, didn't come up? Exemplo347 (talk) 22:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the article on the mountain that suggests it is notable. I stand by my vote.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:NEXIST - at AfD, it is not the content in the article that determines notability, it is the available sourcing that can be located through a reasonable search. Unfortunately, due to the unconventional nature of this AfD bundling, the usual search tools are not available. In the case of geographical features like mountains, WP:MAPOUTCOMES states that mountains usually survive AfD discussions as long as they are featured on maps, which this one is. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * When you checked the article on the mountain (which I'm pretty sure, did you look at the versions in the other 3 Wikis? (Spanish, Swedish, and Cebuano). It would be unusual to not have an English article, when 3 others exist - 2 of which have lots of references. Nfitz (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hang on - there are 15 articles on this nomination, with not much connecting them. Looking at your edit history, you spent 1 minute on this AFD. How did you have time to research all 15 enough to vote, without the normal links to do the research, and without a single other editor in the discussion presenting any arguments to delete? Nfitz (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Procedural Close with no prejudice against relisting in the correct way. The unconventional bundling of subjects that aren't related (some of which meet the GNG, some don't) in a way that makes it impossible for editors to use the usual tools before they !vote makes this particular AfD discussion untenable. No fully informed conclusion can be reached that applies to every single article in the bundle. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural Close - concern as noted above. Also, mountains don't have to meet WP:NPEOPLE - not even those named after people. I've only looked at 3 articles closely. Loma Alto de la Bandera appears to meet WP:GEOLAND. Emmanuel Panagiotakis appears to meet WP:GNG with in-depth features like and  (though the reliability of the source might be questionable - however, there are many, many, many news articles mentioning this person, I've only looked at a couple. And Ali Ahmed Al-Kuwari gives me a couple hundred news hits. If all the articles are like this, it would take a good hour or so just to assess notability, and we'd have a very long discussion. Nfitz (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2017 (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.