Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Archibald (2nd nomination)


 * 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__. Daniel (talk) 11:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Todd Archibald
AfDs for this article:


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

Article recreated by WP:SPA following deletion a year and a half ago. I am bringing this to the community's attention. I am personally a weak delete: somewhat accomplished person, but I think it falls a little short of our notability criteria. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators,  and Canada. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. This still isn't properly sourced as getting him over WP:GNG — nine of the 13 footnotes are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the four hits that come from real media aren't about him, but just glance off his existence in the process of being about people or organizations that had cases come to his courtroom, which is not enough to get him over WP:GNG if he isn't actually their subject. Bearcat (talk) 06:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. mostly primary sources. Hkkingg (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete (Procedural) -- concensus can change, but not likely within 6 months. There were good keep arguments before and good delete arguments then too.  But let's not go through the whole process again so soon. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. The only plausible argument for keeping (ultimately not successful) in the previous AfD was per WP:AUTHOR, as an author of legal textbooks. But nobody making that argument linked to any published reviews and I couldn't find any. The current version doesn't even mention the books. The previous deleted version also noted that he was the editor-in-chief of Advocates Quarterly, but to make a case for WP:PROF we would need to argue that it is a major journal and we don't even have an article about it. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Delete as per arguements at the last AFD Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2024 (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.