Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Charles Farrer


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Paul Charles Farrer

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

Game show contestant who does not appear to pass even a bare minimum of WP:GNG, article appears to be a WP:COATRACK violation as well. Jayron 32 16:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Jayron!
 * I am the creator of this article. I am new to wikipedia, and so I apologise deeply if I have caused you a lot of hassle.
 * However, I do not believe that this article should be deleted, it was about much more than his appearance on a game show. Before being edited by someone else, this article also outlined ... The article however did not just focus on that alone, it also mentioned his works for charity, and so I believe it was a well balanced overview of him, even if it is a very short article.
 * Many thanks! Cat957 (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Somebody decided to delete a part of my comment without warrant. What I was saying was this article outlines [removed], which was publicised. Cat957 (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Appearing on a game show, working for charity and being found to have acted inappropriately in a workplace does not make an otherwise non-notable person notable. The article is poorly sourced as well. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Spain,  and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I went back in the article's history, and read the longer version. There is no way under the sun that this person is notable, and there is no plausible claim of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In particular, the notion that Church Militant (website) is a reliable source for use on Wikipedia is ludicrous. It is the opposite of a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment I had to re-read the stub that was here a few times to confirm why it was indicated that he was on a game show. Otherwise he just appears to be a cleric. I'll review the older versions of the article and see what I can find before !voting. Oaktree b (talk) 18:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no indication and cannot find any indication of notability, and I also think the article has WP:BLP issues, which per WP:DEL-REASON is also a reason to delete --Tristario (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. What I think we have here is a good-faith effort to recognize a person who is laudably generous but falls far short of WP:ANYBIO, WP:CLERGY, and WP:SIGCOV criteria. Blue Riband► 18:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't find any sources that show they would pass any notability standards. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:46, 7 December 2022 (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.