Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyn Shaddock


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Lyn Shaddock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable businessman, board member of a couple of things. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MT TrainDiscuss 08:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

‘’’Very strong give him an knighthood and keep him’’’. Now I notice you can personalize your really important strong vote I’m going to go back and redo some of mine. Someone chopped mine off because I suggested they were w$&?ers. Well guess what? They were. But Lyn has a silly name so you gotta feel sorry for him and anyway the finest library in Australia has a fine of all his newspaper cuttings so I surprise he is more important than me. While I’m at voting ‘’’keep’’’ for Lyn Baby can you tell me why my name only comes up red. All you blueblooded Cranbrook boys come up in Blue. Laddeeda!Publicschoolboy (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like they've been successful, but not notable in their career.  Article is really a CV more than anything else, and no indication of meeting the WP:GNG.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC).
 * Strong Delete. The article reads more like a CV on LinkedIn than Wikipedia. No signs indicative of conformity to WP:GNG. Notability is clearly not established. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 09:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree that it looks like a non-notable CV.  At first it looked like a reasonably impressive career, but all three of the references given in the Career section failed verification. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Run of the mill-businessman not verified by the sources. Flagrantly not notable Adsfvdf54gbb (talk) 11:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - a few brief mentions, but nowhere near the extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources required. Nwlaw63 (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources really in the article itself. BEFORE shows some, but not enough. It might be possible to establish notability based on non-digital archive material - but that hasn't been done here.Icewhiz (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This creation of articles on non-notable alumni of Newington College has gotten totally out of hand.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep delete  There is a bit more here but probably not sufficient for WP:NEXIST. Aoziwe (talk) 08:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote to weak keep per further NLA material. Aoziwe (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 *  Keep. The Australian Financial Review last year headlines him as 'master of the property cycle' and the National Library of Australia keeps a file of his newspaper cuttings so he looks notable to me. Castlemate (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Castlemate May I suggest you use templates for references, for example cite web rather than raw links. Aoziwe (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion but I'm an old dog incapable of new tricks. I have largely lost interest in Wikipedia and its bureaucracy. The AfD system is broken given that a person who has been part of the community for a week can cause such harm. More importantly the people who "vote" can be entirely ignorant in the ares in which they vote. A good example of this was Warwick Cathro who was so close to being deleted until the library community came out in force to support him. Up until then the commentary on an important information technologist was patronising and banal. Castlemate (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient for WP:GNG. The NLA file might prove otherwise, but until someone actually goes and inspects it it's impossible to say. Frickeg (talk) 10:31, 15 December 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.