Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Krystal (2nd nomination)

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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Krystal[edit]

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

does not meet WP:BIO, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Appears to be a copy and paste of previously deleted article. RadioFan (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kill with fire yet again. A largely NN person and yet another unsourced BLP. What's more is that it's become a target for utterly unsourced allegations which have required oversight. I can't go into the details other than point out that this is completely unacceptable - Alison ^❤ 04:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Look at the history and the comments - draw your own conclusions :( - Alison ^❤ 04:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article has been a target for unsourced and poorly sourced allegations for some time; the man is not especially notable. It's impossible to improve the article because of the lack of sources. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Recusing for obvious reasons, Panyd is currently re-adding sources that have been lost since this version. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this isn't a G4 candidate and isn't a copy-paste - I hope the nominator will re-word his nom statement a little to reflect that! The previous AfD is also largely useless - three or four votes to delete, the lengthiest argument of which was "because I said so". The Cavalry (Message me) 16:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder, this isn't a vote so the number of editors indicating delete vs. keep is irrelevant. The goal is to gain concensus on whether the article is meets guidelines for inclusion.--RadioFan (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True nowadays, but the previous AfD was a vote, from the old VfD process (now deprecated and replaced with AfD) - I've been an admin for a while, and an editor a while longer ;-) The Cavalry (Message me) 20:42, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a person who obviously meets WP:GNG as there is extensive local coverage of him. In spite of any issues which may arise over the vandalism which has been perpetrated, this person is still obviously notable as WP:ENT as well. I've added references to support this assertion Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not seeing how this person meets WP:ENT, they've not had film, TV or stage roles. There is no evidence of a large fan base and no indication of any innovative or unique innovative contribution to his field. He also does not meet general notability guidelines as there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. Articles in the local newspapers about the comings and goings of a local DJ are not unusual and dont really help establish notability here.--RadioFan (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would've said that he does have a cult following having read through the reports on him. He appears to have a reputation as a 'shock-jock' and a following who enjoy that sort of thing. WP:GNG notes that if a person has received significant coverage they are notable. This person has received significant coverage. If 9 sources specifically discussing this person and their work in-depth isn't enough to show this I can add more but I think he qualifies at this time. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient coverage in reliable sources exists to demonstrate notability. e.g.[1],[2],[3], etc. Robofish (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject is the focus of in-depth coverage in major Canadian newspapers, including The Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star (as linked by Robofish above) and meets the verifiability and notability thresholds. - Dravecky (talk) 10:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Despite the fact that there are some with BLP concerns about various previous edits, the fact that a subject is controversial should not be sufficient cause for deletion. This article subject is clearly the topic of multiple reliable sources, per the footnotes showing, and meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 01:29, 24 February 2011 (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.