Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Sievers


 * 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Wayne Sievers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Long standing BLP article with poor references, passed to AfD from BLPPROD. I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. [[Image:Wikipedia-logo.png|25px]] Ascii002  Talk   Contribs  01:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. [[Image:Wikipedia-logo.png|25px]] Ascii002  Talk   Contribs  01:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as a page that is unambiguously designed to (a) promote the subject of the article and (b) support the subject's world view. Examples are:
 * 'he established a reputation for innovative and effective methods in drug investigations, intelligence probes and community policing'
 * 'From this platform he campaigned strongly on industrial issues affecting police including peacekeeping veterans, community safety and the failure of the Australia's to heed warning on the coming violence in East Timor. He appeared on national media in this role, and soon became the subject of an allegedly politically motivated campaign to discredit him and force him from the Australian Federal Police.'
 * 'He passed these on to the United Nations and to the Australian Government, but became deeply concerned when it was apparent these warnings were being ignored.'
 * Really, I wouldn't object at all to a G11 speedy deletion. Now, this is not to say that the subject isn't notable. I suspect he probably would meet the GNG based on coverage in reliable sources (eg ). And if someone wants to fix the article in the coming week, great -- ignore my !vote if that's done. But otherwise, we can, and should, delete pages that are unambiguously promotional and that have no safe version in their history to revert to. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The article certainly suggests the potential to pass WP:GNG if the appropriate volume of reliable sourcing were present to support it, but the above assessment is correct that there are significant POV/promotional overtones here. The closest thing to "sourcing", further, is a contextless linkfarm of external links to video interviews with Sievers — but it's a core precept of GNG that interviews with the subject don't confer notability by themselves. They'd be acceptable for additional confirmation of facts after enough third-party sourcing, in which other people were writing or speaking about him, had been added to cover off the basic notability, but sources in which the subject is talking about himself cannot confer notability if they're the only sources present. Delete per WP:NUKEANDPAVE — no prejudice against recreation in the future if a properly sourced and neutral version can be created. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as article is promotional. AlanS (talk) 06:16, 24 August 2014 (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.