Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lionel Richards

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 06:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lionel Richards

Vanity article. Subject of the article is not noteworthy. Information in the article is unverifiable. Decr32 02:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm sure people loved him but Wikipedia is not a memorial and there is no assertion of notability as an activist in the article. Daniel Case 03:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If he was notable as a fathers' rights activist during his lifetime, then the article should remain. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 03:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Information is verifiable 600 G-hits Not sure 600 g hits, not all his, establish notabilty. :) Dlohcierekim 05:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and he doesn't appear to have been a notable figure per WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 06:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per TruthbringerToronto's argument. Sources need to be cited. --HResearcher 07:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per TruthbringerToronto, bur article needs a big tidyup, sources etc. --BrownHairedGirl 11:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per User:Coredesat. This individual may have been more of a father's rights supporter than an activist. Ifnord 14:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. He is mentioned briefly on BBC [1], and he was aparently fairly well known in the father's right movement (probably especially in Australia), and in people opposing them [2]. The article need some editing though. --Kristjan Wager 17:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It needs some cleanup, but that doesn't mean it needs to be completely deleted. --Daniel Olsen 20:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There are seven mentions of Mr Richards in an Australia New Zealand media database. One article mentions him as a spokesman for Ozydads who had organised a march of 50 people in Perth in April 2004. The other articles refer to his role as the propietor of Captain Munchies and his fights with the Fremantle Council over his dog. Even with the mention in the BBC, it doesn't make him notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 03:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

He gets more hits on Factiva, including a near 1000 word feature obituary which states "In the course of his life, Lionel Richards was photographer, film producer, spokesman for Mel Gibson, producer of a No.1 record, proprietor of a fast-food stand, councillor, aspiring MP and campaigner for fathers who had been denied access to their children..." ("Tireless campaigner for parents' rights" by Len Findlay, The West Australian, 19 September 2005. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a brief autobiography[3]suggesting the peak of his showbiz career is publicist for Mel Gibson in 1979. Richards is not mentioned in the credits of "Summer City", the movie Findlay claims he helped produce.--Decr32 03:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep meets notability for me but the article needs expanding. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep IF the unverified claim that he co-founded SPCA is true --Garrie 06:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Google searches reveal his notability and the breadth and depth of his activities (support, advocacy, etc) and activism. This is not a vanity article. Additional details and citations have been added. IP 2006 203.122.80.180 16:40(approx), 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Google searches reveal self-references and pov references. There is no independent, reliable evidence that Richards has actually done anything substantial as a father's rights activist.

WP:VANITY An article written in glowing terms by someone associated with the person or group in the story is a vanity article. --Decr32 06:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

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.