Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sidney Sinclair

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, withdrawing nomination, notability has been established and references added to the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sidney Sinclair

No verification of notability, most of the sources are links to Wikipedia pages or do not mention Sinclair. I think he did exist, since he is mentioned in passing in this book, but this isn't enough to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). Tim Vickers (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does assert notability, but it doesn't prove notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: messy article, but the award of an OBE indicates notability.--Grahame (talk) 01:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "President of the Board of the Sydney Grand Synagogue seems to me to indicate a man of some importance in the Jewish community in Australia (if this can be sourced), over and above his OBE and AM (which certainly can be sourced). Certainly the article needs cleaning up, but is worth keeping. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think sources could be found that support notability, could you please find them and add them to the article? Tim Vickers (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, supporting the retention of an article does not make me responsible for improving it. Secondly, while unsourced claims can be removed from the article, it is not necessary to actually provide sources to support retention, merely demonstrate that the claims of notability are capable of being sourced. My ___location in small-town NSW does not allow me access to the full range of sources that may be available at the State Library of NSW, this does not mean that they do not exist. There is this source - Raymond Apple (Editor), "The Great Synagogue: A History of Sydney's Big Shule", UNSW Press, 2008 for starters. I have checked and there is not a copy of this book at my local library (I know the librarian!) The Its an honour website and/or the London Gazette should be sufficient for the OBE and AM claims. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 02:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, here is support for one of the claims. Cheers, Mattinbgn\^talk 02:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The awarding of the OBE in itself proves notability. Murtoa (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The commercial career is significant, and at least one or two of the companies would probably be notable if they were checked up on. In any case, and OBE is an accepted demonstration of notability. Th OBE was present in the article from the beginning-- I suppose it wasn't noticed when the nomination was made.

DGG (talk) 23:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is established. --Dreamspy (talk) 19:42, 29 September 2008 (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.