Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Lindo

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Lindo

[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)

Article does not meet GNG or NBIO. No indication of notability. Sources are not SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 02:08, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Jamaica. AllyD (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In no way notable. Athel cb (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Belichickoverbrady (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep The nominator nominated 8 articles of members on the Lindo family in a 10 minute span and used the exact word-for-word deletion rationale for all of them. Of the subjects with "No indication of notability", least 2 were members of Jamaican Parliament and one was the Governor of Dominica for seven years. If the nominator would provide an article-specific rationale I will consider changing my vote but currently this looks like a mass-AfD with little WP:BEFORE research or even reading of the articles that are being nominated. Best,
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Nominator's tack here is definitely problematic, and is showing little regard for very real differences in notability and sourceability within the group he's targeted — but in this particular article I can't see anything to base a keep argument on. The introduction says he was a politician, but then completely fails to contain any body content that describes any political activity, so he can't be judged against WP:NPOL, but there's really nothing else here that meets any of our other inclusion standards for people in other occupations either. And the article is referenced 3/4 to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and 1/4 to a book about the entire Lindo family, which is obviously a start but not in and of itself enough to secure the permanent encyclopedic notability of every individual member of that family all by itself without additional GNG-worthy reliable sourcing on top of that. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: If I'm reading the mention from this source correctly it would appear that he served as a member of the Legislative Council of Jamaica in the 1870's. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yes, that do change things. Keep as holder of an WP:NPOL-passing office, but flag for referencing improvement. Bearcat (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Concur with GPL93, appears to have been a member of the Legislative Council (pp10-11). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having served in a national legislative body, he clearly passes WP:NPOL criterion#1. Sal2100 (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2023 (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.