Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Lindblad


 * 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. Lara ❤  Love  22:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert Lindblad

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Most of the apparent references are copyvios, since they are clips from newspapers hosted on his own personal site, and are too small to be readable in any case. The Youtube segment copied from TVA Montreal just provides his own account of how he helped out in one case of a missing child. (Nothing is quoted from any of the official investigators to confirm his role in the case). The article needs much more serious references to confirm the claims made and to establish his notability. Article was created by User:Robert Lindblad who is presumably the subject, which raises questions under our WP:AUTO and WP:COI guidelines. WP:AUTO states that Writing an autobiography on Wikipedia is strongly discouraged.. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC) EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. It's clearly an autobiography, but there is some evidence of notability here - the French-language coverage is pretty trivial, but the TV interview and English-language sources are more significant. What inclines me towards 'delete' is that his notability, such as it is, seems to focus around one event - since the missing child incident, he's received very little coverage, and appears to have sunk back into obscurity. Terraxos (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re EdJohnston & Terraxos

Their is one news article that may be considered too small to read however it can be blown up for a better view by the reader. The Youtube segment is not only Robert Lindblads' own account as it was verified and confirmed by the parents of the child, the investigative reporters of Le Journal de Montreal, and that of the investigative reporters of "J.E. en direct". The police never reveal sources as it is part of the job of an investigator not to reveal sources however the parents of the missing child do confirm Robert Lindblads' role in the investigation in the Le Journal de Montreal article of 31-5-98 as do the investigative reporters of J.E. en direct. More references, proving that Robert Lindblads' notability is not related to one single event, in which the cases were active at the time have been added. These articles being that of The Ottawa Sun (2006) and the S.O.S. (TV-Asahi, Japan 2005) documentary. A radio interview from 2007 has also been added. The French-language coverage is not trivial at all as it is the first proven event recorded in history relating to an active case of a missing child that was solved by a psychic within 2 minutes. The evidence is clear as in Le Journal de Montreal article of 31-5-98 it states that the parents mentioned they called Robert Lindblad and were shocked to hear him state that their child had accidently drowned including where his body would be found and the very next day the article of Le Journal de Montreal of 1-6-98 states that the childs' corpse was found floating in the body of water that Robert Lindblad indicated to the parents. Robert Lindblads' work has been and continues do be done on a daily basis, is highly confidential and sensitive. However a few of the "then active" cases have been discussed in the aforementioned articles and interviews. As an investigator the cases Robert Lindblad works on a daily basis are private and not related to the press. The Dreamtalk interview in August of 2007 and other relavent articles and interviews dimisses the claim of falling into obscurity even though obscurity is part of the realm of a private investigator.


 * Delete per nom and WP:COI and WP:AUTO.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Cyberghostface Concerning COI From where do you get promoting your own intetrest? This is in the interest of all Wikipedia readers and is not a self promotion as it relates to the subject of psychics which is and has been included in Wikipedia for many years already. Concerning WP This article is backed up by proven and verified facts from the news articles of Le Journal de Montreal, the J.E. investigative team, and the parents of the missing child to deny reports that follow each other certifiably dated in sequence is to err in judgement. You are in error concerning the WP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Lindblad (talk • contribs) 21:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - It fails to meet any measure of notability - the sources are not reliable and can not be verified as they are copies on someone's web site. A person who lives in obscurity is, by definition, not notable.  Sources must be from multiple higher-quality sources, and not just be from one case in the news.  Autohagiographies are especially suspect, particularly when they were deleted in the past, as is in this case.  I'm sure Mr. Lindblad is a nice guy and respected by the crime victim's families and the police, but that does not make him notable.  Bearian (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Bearian Concerning WP:N you are in error. As defined by Wikipedias' guidelines "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition" Their are 11 articles printed and broadcasts from Canada, the United States, England, and Japan concerning more than one case that specifically meet Wikipedias'guidelines and by the way these are high-quality and reliable sources which are verifiable. As for the page being previously deleted it should be ignored as the person in charge at that point did not bother to spend the time or effort to do the verifications and decided on a prejudicial whim to delete the page. I know this because the articles are verifiable. The 11 articles and interviews from England, Japan, Canada, and the United States dismisses your account of "A person who lives in obscurity is, by definition, not notable." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Lindblad (talk • contribs) 21:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Verifiable but not notable. Stifle (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Stifle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Lindblad (talk • contribs) 21:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for verifying them however once again "notability" as defined by Wikipedias' own guidelines is "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition" Their are 11 articles printed and broadcast from Canada, the United States, England, and Japan concerning more than one case that specifically meet Wikipedias'guidelines including recognition of peers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Lindblad (talk • contribs) 21:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2008 (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.