Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sydney Ling2

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-23 08:17Z

[edit] Sydney Ling

Sydney Ling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Previous AfD led to no consensus. Subsequent review stated that unless article and notability was significantly improved within a reasonable period of time, that a new AfD would be warranted. I see little substantive changes, and it's been almost nine months. I believe that everything has already been said in the articles for creation archive (linked in the old AfD), article talk page, original AfD, and deletion review.

If a man demanding to be called Lord and then demanding his own Wikipedia article isn't vanity, I don't know what is. Thank you. Girolamo Savonarola 15:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - seems to me that the Guinness Book of Records mention and the other external sources constitute multiple third-party coverage per WP:BIO. As to calling him "Lord", the article does not demand this, it simply claims that he is sometimes credited under that title (although ideally this statement should be sourced). (For all we know it could be his actual title - hereditary titles do exist in Holland, and he would be entitled to use the stated form if he were the eldest son of a hereditary peer. Even if it's a false title, that doesn't make him inherently non-notable.) Walton monarchist89 16:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Holding a Guinness record does not in and of itself constitute notability. Girolamo Savonarola 17:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The externally sourced notability - film career - seems trivial, weighed against the strong possibility that we're on the receiving end of promo for some individual or collective hoax/fantasy. The fake nobility isn't a good sign; there have no real Holy Roman Empire titles for centuries, whatever the alleged Imperial Council of Princes and Counts of Germany and Europe says. Googling finds a number of sites making extravagant claims [1]] [2] [3] but I can't find verification for any of it in NewsBank, Times Digital Archive, etc. Tearlach 19:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, one minor accomplishment does not translate into notability, nor do friendships or business associations with notable persons. Almost nothing besides the Guinness record is remotely verifiable; my guess is that the aristocratic title is about as valid as Zsa Zsa's eighth husband's. --Dhartung | Talk 22:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete There is no need to guess about notability, it is clearly non-notable according to the article itself: his record for the longest film documentary was "featuring his grandmother actress Martha Stelloo," and then says "He has primarily been involved in packaging,promotion and the financing of US and European projects as well as low-budget independent European films," avoiding a direct reference to more than one--a film whose notability has not been established. Personally, my guess is that a hoax would make more extravagant claims. DGG 11:07, 20 February 2007 (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.