Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Halper
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 (closed by non-admin) as per consensus, the added sources demonstrate WP:NOTE. RMHED (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable person, despite his huge donation (a "pioneer in baseball memorabilia collecting?" AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Anybody who gets a 600+ word obituary in the New York Times is probably notable [1]. Similarly, USA Today covered him, as noted in the article. Articles appear in Cigar Aficianado (of all places) [2], and CNN covered the auction. [3] As noted by CNN, a gallery in the Baseball Hall of Fame is named for him. [4]. Sure, the "pioneer in baseball memorabilia collecting" phrase could be written a bit better, but a quick run through a few reliable sources with a Google search shows significant coverage, and what seems to me like clear notability. --TheOtherBob 05:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: And improve. Per the above comment, person is clearly notable, but the article doesn't properly assert that. - Rjd0060 (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've cleaned it up some, put the ref into citation style, etc., but it seems to me, this person is notable, and more refs could be found. That is a giant sum of money at the Sotheby's auction, certainly his collection was one of the best in the world, thus, seems notable. Ariel♥Gold 06:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, sources demonstrate notability, though article could still use improvement. (And Cigar Aficionado is actually a pretty good magazine which runs very readable celebrity profiles.) --Dhartung | Talk 10:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, yeah - I like Cigar Aficionado - it's a good magazine, it just wasn't the source I was expecting. --TheOtherBob 17:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per TheOtherBob's sources research. - Mgm|(talk) 00:14, 18 November 2007 (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.