Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacha Stone

Sacha Stone

[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)

Non notable, lot or original research sources seems to mention in passing from one or two news adding to unrealiable sources like buzz feed or to be from primary sources like court orders, as per WP:SINGLEEVENT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:SYNTHESIS and non notable Shrikanthv (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Matters pertaining to WP:SINGLEEVENT, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:SYNTHESIS should be taken to the article's talk page. We can make a group effort to address the flaws. I hope you will identify them clearly and specifically. Biographical articles should not represent living people in a way that is misleading or biased. If this article has become biased or misleading then we should correct the record urgently. In this discussion we address notability only, which I think this subject clearly is. Sacha Stone has been the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources in multiple languages. Please be specific if you think that some other standard should apply. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:48, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment - awaiting reliable sources Shrikanthv (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment - This subject has been covered extensively by the BBC, South China Morning Post, AFP Fact-Check and other reliable sources. Do you feel that none of these sources are sufficient to show the subject's notability? --Salimfadhley (talk) 12:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - scabrous fraudster, but I fear he does meet our standards of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination mischaracterizes the sources. For one thing, multiple discussions have reached the conclusion that Buzzfeed News is RS, which is the source referenced here. For another, the nom ignores sources like AP News, BBC, and Sydney Morning Herald How these are supposed to be considered primary is exceptionally unclear. Finally, the sources already there demonstrate that there is ongoing coverage over a considerable time so none of the rest of the alphabet soup in the nomination applies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:26, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's true that this newly created article includes some primary and week sources that would benefit from improving, and it would be helpful if any problematic sources were flagged in the article and/or raised on the talk page. However, the mentions in RSs clearly indicate notability. BobFromBrockley (talk) 17:08, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]