Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Robinson (environmentalist)

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. ✗plicit 14:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Robinson (environmentalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of an environmental campaigner, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for activists. As always, people are not automatically entitled to have articles just because they have jobs, and have to show third-party coverage and analysis about their work to establish that it's been externally validated as significant -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, such as his staff or contributor profiles on the self-published websites of organizations he's been directly affiliated with, and even the very few citations that lead to real WP:GNG-worthy media are not coverage about Mike Robinson, but just briefly namecheck Mike Robinson as a provider of soundbite in an article about something else.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the subject of sufficient media coverage to pass WP:GNG. Also there's a likely conflict of interest, as the creator's username has the initials of an organization the subject is closely associated with in it. To be fair, they complied with COI rules by creating it in draft, but then somebody else perfunctorily submitted it to the AFC queue two days ago, and then almost immediately moved it into mainspace themselves without waiting for a proper AFC review — but the fact that the COI existed in the first place still means the draft required heightened analysis by an established AFC reviewer, which can't just be bypassed like that. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and Scotland. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Sources are mostly primary or non-RS. I can't find anything either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete - Explored sources but they seem primary or primary-inspired (largely sourced from organisations to which he is affiliated). Not finding any significant coverage (more than routine or passing mentions) in reliable independent sources. Paul W (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2023 (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.