Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosper Ellis

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 keep. – Joe (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prosper Ellis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A hopelessly non-notable person from Newington College. By day, he was a public servant/surveyor with no specific position. At a recreational level, he was an administrator at some suburban golf clubs in Sydney, won a suburban competition, and remodelled some suburban courses, none of which are used for professional tournaments. ADS54 talk 11:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Columnist at The Sun-Herald a major Sydney paper and remodelled several times The Australian Golf Club a major Sydney golf Club. Castlemate (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there is just sufficient throughout here and in google to support WP:NEXIST to get over the WP:GNG line. (Note that "what" someone does does not have to be notable, just that they are noted in RS for doing it. If what people did had to be notable then 90% of musicians, bands, artists, authors, actors, and sportspeople, and 99.999% of celebrities (who are only famous for being famous) must also be deleted.) Aoziwe (talk) 13:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a columnist for any paper is not a sign of notability. We need sources by others about the subject, and we do not have enough such to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Aoziwe's link illustrating sufficient detail of coverage in reliable sources. Would've said delete otherwise - some of that coverage/sources needs to actually make it into the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep per Aoziwe - really only just, but for me the column in a major paper plus a pretty wide range of mentions and coverage does the trick. Frickeg (talk) 12:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There's enough reliable independent sources talking about him to pass the WP:GNG. The article could do with some work, but that's no reason to delete it. Kb.au (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.