Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vern B. Moore

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. WP:BURDEN was not addressed. No prejudice on recreation if significant coverage in reliable sources are available and included on a subsequent article. Mkdw ^talk 05:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vern B. Moore

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

According to this obituary, this "newspaper man" was the "National Advertising Manager" for Le Droit, hardly enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:59, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- My initial thought was that he did not quite meet notability, but appointment as a Knight Grand Cross of a Catholic order suggests that the ancient order in question considered him notable; if so, WP should do so. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if reliable sourcing were present to support the article. It's not so notable as to confer an exemption from having to cite any sources, though. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can find the depth of reliable sourcing present to properly support an article — but holding an honorific title within a religious order is not enough to hand him a no-sourcing-required inclusion freebie. Even the Pope still has to be sourceable. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (voted above), lack of sourcing suggests that the article should be tagged as needing sources, not that it should be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is claiming nothing about him that confers an automatic presumption of notability in the absence of a WP:GNG pass being explicitly demonstrated by sourcing present in the article. There certainly does exist a small, highly rarefied class of notability claims which are considered so inherently notable that an article must be allowed to exist — and so if somebody halfassedly starts one without actually showing the proper depth of sourcing, then as long as we can verify that the claim is actually true we keep the article and just flag it for refimprove. Presidents of countries, members of legislatures, popes, and on and so forth. But that's only granted to certain specific positions of high public importance and visibility, where we know for a fact that proper sourcing for it does exist because congressmen and legislators and popes are a thing that media do cover in depth, and the creator's only error was not actually having done as much work as we already know is possible. And even then, the article does still have to be improved with sourcing, and the article doesn't earn a permanent exemption from having to be improved.

"Knight Grand Cross of a religious order" is not such a claim; it's the kind of claim that would count if he could be shown to pass GNG for it, but there's no guarantee that GNG will be passed for it, and thus no guarantee that the article will actually be improvable at all. For notability claims of that type, we do not "keep and flag for refimprove"; we delete and then permit recreation in the future if the necessary depth of sourceability is actually shown properly in the new version. Bearcat (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have searched news archives with and without B. and Basil, and without quotes but with keywords like Ontario and Catholic, and I can find nothing , nothing at all. I do not see that honorary titles awarded by the Order of the Holy Sepulchre confers notability; (perhaps it did before they lost the Holy Land). I am genuinely surprised not to find at least an obit, since he does seem to have been a civic leader.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2016 (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.