Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Tibbo

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tibbo

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

Promotional lovefest for this individual who lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Current bombardment of sources in this hagiography is mainly about others with passing mentions of him or quotes from him, not independent coverage of him. The one exception is from CBA National Magazine, the official periodical of the Canadian Bar Association, one trade rag is not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. Certain editors seem bent on doing a huge promotional job for Tibbo. It is a stretch to suggest that Tibbo is anything more remarkable or noted than the average HR legal practitioner. The Snowden case is a prominent one but there is no shortage of those. An encyclopedic, factual article seems impossible in the face of the keenness of his acolytes, so deletion is very strongly supported by me. sirlanz(talk) 07:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 13:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely a valid potential claim of notability here — but as far as I can see, the sourcing is very disproportionately dependent on simple namechecks of his existence in coverage of other topics (usually as a provider of soundbite), with not nearly enough sources that are substantively about him to satisfy WP:GNG at all. And there's a definite promotional/PR skew here, as the nominator correctly points out — it's not so blatant that it would have triggered my WP:CSD reflex, but it's definitely tilted in that direction. I give Sirlanz credit for the work he's done trying to tone it down, but he's entirely correct that there's just not enough meat on this bone to hold all the puffery. Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if he ever becomes the subject of enough coverage (which, again, is not the same thing as getting quoted in articles about other things.) Bearcat (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At first the list of references looked impressive, so I checked about a quarter of them. I see where the other commenters are coming from and agree with their insights. ShelbyMarion (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2015 (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.