Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas W. Carey


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 16:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thomas W. Carey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This looks well-sourced, but as far as I can see, every reference is either (a) a listing, mostly from lists of lawyers (b) not about the subject, or (c) a passing mention, bar a single reference - the Orlando Sentinel one. I'm not convinced that a single local news story is enough to pass GNG; the subject appears to be only the head of a local chapter of an organisation. Article written by a paid editor, Added: nearly all of whom's other articles have been deleted for non-notability. Black Kite (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not a paid editor, and not all of my contributions from Wikipedia have been deleted (although I have a feeling they may be soon). I do not really understand the assault on my articles, but you are the experts, presumably.  One of the notability criterion is to have served in an organization on the State level which this person has (Florida chairperson for MADD).  Neurosciency (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That State level notability criteria is for politicians. And I apologise, I did miss the borderline notable Jonathan Pease (creative designer) and Geoffrey David Sewell. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Oof.  I made it through every one of these sources in this thoroughly over-footnoted article.  By about halfway through something like this, you start to feel like you're really being used, that your time is really being wasted.  When every source turns out to WP:PRIMARY or trivial, you get to suspecting what's ahead.  But do you give up and come here to !vote without having checked them all or do you soldier on?  I actually did soldier on and can report what I found.  The only thing that might even possibly qualify is the Orlando Sentinel article.  But if you read carefully, it's mostly PR coverage of MADD that concludes by announcing they'll have a candlelight vigil the following Monday.  At best, he's barely notable for WP:ONEEVENT, the death of his wife.  Everything else offered as a source is truly useless.  Msnicki (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * delete Although the creator has worked very hard at this, a careful reading shows that the subject is not notable. While if I should need the subject's services, (he doesn't advertise as some of his colleagues do and I'd not heard of him here-to-fore) I'm happy to have learned of him, he just isn't notable. In fact, this is a very well crafted article, casting a not notable subject in the best possible light. Dloh  cierekim  20:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete advert. This material might be good on his own website.  Also, there is abundant evidence against the claim "I am not a paid editor."  Logical Cowboy (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly an advertisement, doesn't belong on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - This advertisement passes the duck test. -   t  u coxn \ talk 04:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Mr. Carey sounds like a wonderful man - a wonderful addition to his community and the kind of upstanding person who really makes the world go around. I wish, in fact, we didn't use the term 'notability' for the simple reason that to many people 'non-notable' sounds like a value judgment that someone isn't important in some ultimate sense.  The point is that there is not enough confirmed information in reliable third-party sources to allow for the real creation of a genuine biography.  Much credit to Msnicki for working so carefully through the sources to try to find something salvageable here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2013 (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.