Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Butler (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Butler

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Appears to be a clear-cut case of BLP1E with no clear-cut merge target. StarM 02:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. StarM 02:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Purely trivial information. Does not meet WP:GNG Yinglong999 (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A long standing 17-year article with many versions that need scrutiny ~~that should have been tagged for first before coming to AFD~~. I have had a cursory glance and if a WP:BLP1E then Janet Albrechtsen may be a potential nerge target.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply yep, it was created right around the event, with nothing added since as he hasn't otherwise been notable that I can find. It had been tagged for almost seven years. I saw no further action that would have solved the concerns before AfD unfortunately. StarM 11:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete having your views cited in a legislative hearing is not at all close to making someone notable. This is a very clear failure of BLP1E guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I've added a couple of articles he authored that were published in the Sydney Morning Herald (so not 'independent' but 'reliable') to help bolster the page, but those two articles were the only (remotely) IRS I could find via a ProQuest database search of Australian and NZ newspapers (broader and deeper than Google). So that's hardly smashing his notability out of the ballpark. I would be inclined to delete fro failing to meet WP:GNG and I agree fails WP:BLP1E. Cabrils (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG.--MadD ^(talk) 11:19, 8 April 2021 (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.