Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Robles

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. Missvain (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Robles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails GNG, lack of independent, reliable sources found. Deproded without any valid explanation or sources that would satisfy notability requirements. (t · c) buidhe 15:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 15:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 15:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 15:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Once again, I shouldn't have to explain that a prod can be removed for any reason or none (i.e. there is no "valid explanation" or indeed invalid explanation, since removal of a prod is an absolute right of any editor) and that prodding is for wholly uncontroversial deletion. This clearly is not and needs wider discussion. Prodding is emphatically not a way to simply avoid the AfD process for articles that may have value. Although it is sadly increasingly used in this way and editors who prod and have their prods removed increasingly seem to express sour grapes that they have to "waste their valuable time" taking the article to AfD, that is not the function of prodding. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I never said that? What I said is that you shouldn't deprod an article without a reason why it would be kept. If there is none, then it *is* a waste of editors' time, but that's on you, not me. (t · c) buidhe 01:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  And which particular section of WP:PROD are you citing here? There is nothing wrong with opening up a deletion to wider discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete has only 1 citation that isn't his own work, and an citations needed template from 11 years ago. Shocked that it wasn't deleted already.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that John Robles is still the only American with full permanent political asylum in the Russian Federation (something that not even Edward Snowden could achieve), has had asylum for 13 years and has been battling the censorship of his journalistic work, it would be a historical disservice to delete this page.

• Delete - can't find enough sources to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:04, 16 December 2020 (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.