Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Archibald


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. While keep has a numerical majority, the majority of keep !votes in this discussion have no grounding in policy, whereas the deletes are well-reasoned. signed,Rosguill talk 17:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Todd Archibald

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a retired judge and current president of his own mediation/arbitration consultancy, not properly referenced as having a strong claim to passing Wikipedia inclusion criteria. As always, judges can have articles that properly reference them over WP:GNG, but are not "inherently" notable enough that they would be automatically entitled to have articles just for existing -- but the referencing here is based almost entirely on primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, such as his "staff" profiles on the self-published websites of directly affiliated companies or organizations and pieces of his own writing about other things. There's just one citation to a piece of analytical content in a third-party magazine independent of the subject, and it's just a review of an e-book -- so that one hit is not enough to get him over GNG all by itself if it's the only non-primary source on offer, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to get over GNG. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors,  and Businesspeople.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  01:33, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I had thought that his authorship of several published books would have qualified towards the notability requirement. When researching him, I had came across the mediation/arbitration bit, which I thought worthy of including. If it seems "semi-advertorialized", it can be removed, obviously. That was not my intention. I can work to improve the article if that keeps it from being deleted. Yeehaw45 (talk) 02:55, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Merely writing books doesn't make a person notable. We need some indication that the books are significant or influential. Looking for book reviews would be a good place to start. A good rule of thumb is that if a person has written multiple books, and each of them has received multiple reviews, that's probably enough to justify an article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As noted by XOReaster, it's not the writing of books that establishes notability, it's the amount of media coverage that can be shown to establish the significance of said books. Notability isn't "did stuff" per se; it hinges on the amount of third-party analysis the stuff has or hasn't received in media. That is, you don't make a writer notable by sourcing his books to themselves, you make a writer notable by sourcing his books to reviews of the books in newspapers, magazines, literary or academic or law journals, and the like, to show that their significance has been externally validated by somebody other than himself. Bearcat (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. I think there may enough to pass WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC).
 * Keep. I believe it worthy of keeping. -Yeehaw45 (talk) 17:41, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * On what basis and what sourcing? Bearcat (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * On the basis of WP:Author and with the newly sourced information regarding his decision during the PC leadership election. -Yeehaw45 (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 7 November 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. It might seem that there is a consensus to Keep this article but I have doubts about some of the opinions offered and seek more participation for veteran AFD editors. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. He is an author and it appears their is slightly enough news content to support the article. BigWalrus75 (talk) 16:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article pass the notability as an author but need a little bit clean up to properly reference some parts.Bro-Koji (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, BigWalrus75 and Bro-Koji, how did you happen to stumble upon this AFD discussion? You haven't been editing for very long. Liz Read! Talk! 04:51, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: I don't see any non-primary sources with significant coverage of the subject (including the recently added ones, which are only about a decision he made, not the judge himself). The single review of a book he contributed to is not enough to meet WP:NAUTHOR. I too have concerns with some opinions above. Tollens (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What are your concerns? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC).
 * No concerns at all with yours (although I disagree); my concern is the same as Liz's raised above. Tollens (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. There are not enough independent reliable sources to support a BLP, in my opinion.  The only ones in the article that looked good enough to me were  which is a book review with very little biographical coverage and  which has just a brief mention in the context of receiving an award, but it does say "He is recognized for his outstanding legal writing that has made large contributions to the practice of law."  Which is a reasonable claim to notability.  Eluchil404 (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2023 (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.