Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Poltorak

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 no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Poltorak[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not well-known. The article was created in 2005 and the last update that came an actual user and not a bot was in 2017. Don't know if any of the material would be salvageable for the Australian Sale Of The Century article. Pahiy (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Not well known" is not a rationale for deletion, and the time between edits does not make the article worthy of deletion. Articles can exist on relatively unknown topics. Utopes (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Individuals are not notable just for winning television competitions.--Grahame (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Teraplane (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nom says "the article is not well known, and hasn't been edited frequently. Nothing is salvagable." Which part do you agree with? Utopes (talk) 05:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a Sale of the Century (Australian game show) winner and a question/script writer he has coverage spanning over a decade. Articles such as Oliver, Robin (30 September 1991), "QUIZ CHAMP SOLD ON SALE", Sydney Morning Herald and Cockington, James (17 June 1996), "Sold On The Sale", Sydney Morning Herald and Nicholson, Sarah (27 October 2005), "Master knows best", The Courier-Mail focus primarily on him. He was also before Sale a script writer, co writing the notable film Emoh Ruo. duffbeerforme (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Duffbeerforme and Utopes. Bookscale (talk) 11:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete winning a game show does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - did you read Duffbeerforme's comment? He has coverage spanning a decade and has notability outside of winning the game show. Bookscale (talk) 04:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Winning a game show doesn't make him notable. It's possible his work as a screenwriter does make hims notable, but the article does not discuss this work and therefore lacks a proper assertion of notability. Unless someone wants to rescue it by adding content, best to delete per WP:TNT.4meter4 (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'll repeat my comment above - have you read Duffbeerforme's comment? There are sources (on his scriptwriting) that exist and there are sources spanning a decade, the fact that they are not on the article (yet) does not make him not notable, notability is determined outside of the state of an article. It gets really frustrating sometimes when editors don't read other peoples' comments and misunderstand GNG. Bookscale (talk) 10:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and did you read mine? This article could be speedy deleted because it lacks a credible assertion of notability in the text of the live article. We only keep articles where there is a credible text in the live article asserting notability. That text can be unreferenced, but it needs to be there. In other words its not a sourcing issue, but a much more basic issue of notability assertion.4meter4 (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's complete nonsense that the article could be speedy deleted - how does it meet any of the relevant criteria, it quite clearly does not. Notability is not dependent on the status of the article (and whether the sources are there), it's dependent on there being sources at all (which there are). Bookscale (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Borderline case that has gone cold since re-list; try one more re-list to see if anything else emerges
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on my keep. I guess I might not have fully elaborated on my vote. See Category:Game show contestants. Poltorak has a record winning streak for the Australian game show Sale, and held the record for the most money earned on a game show for that time in 1992, says the article and [1]. Now, there are 209 articles about game show contestants, and not all of them have one. IF somebody feels obligated to mass AfD these, go ahead. The presence of other similar articles is not my rationale for keeping mind anybody, but just a point to show that there are many articles about game show contestants that have been left alone. The problem here is that there are no set guidelines for "what makes a game show contestant" notable as far as I'm aware. The nearest solution is WP:ENT. Regardless, this person is a known contestant on a game show who has set various records for said show and earned a large amount of winnings. Utopes (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - @Utopes and they have notability as a script writer as well. Bookscale (talk) 10:04, 14 November 2019 (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.