Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beryl Wajsman

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beryl Wajsman

Beryl Wajsman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:BLP of a community weekly newspaper editor, referenced exclusively to the mastheads of the newspapers he edits (i.e. primary and non-independent sources that cannot support his notability) and not to any evidence of reliable source coverage about him. And on both Google and ProQuest, I get a lot of glancing namechecks of his existence, but the only coverage about him I can find exists in two specific contexts: his candidacy in a forthcoming mayoral election, which is not a notability criterion, and withdrawn decade-old criminal allegations of the type that would violate WP:PERP if we tried to make them the crux of his eligibility for an article (which they would have to be, because nothing else here is properly sourceable.) Basically, nothing here is a valid notability claim in the absence of valid sourcing for it. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete does not pass notability guidelines for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Poorly sourced article with a promotional tone. Not enough evidence in my view to indicate significant notability. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:09, 29 October 2017 (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.