Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hate man

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. JForget 01:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hate man

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

Non-notable, but denied speedy UtherSRG (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. [1], [2], [3] and [4] - there's four sources without me even trying - not even counting the ones that Panyd has pulled up. This is the same sort of article as Józef Stawinoga, which at first glance, is about a reclusive, unwashed, unloved tramp who lived in a tent in an English town - however, with a bit more work, he turned out to pass the guideline. Yes, the article needs work, but which articles don't? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your ref 3 links to Phillip Garrido, accused kidnapper of Jaycee Dugard, and the "backyard prison," and has nothing to do with the subject of this article. Your ref 4 is a campus paper, a class of publication not generally regarded as the most reliable sort of source, but in my estimate comparable to a small town paper. Edison (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying very hard - that was a thirty second search on Google Archives. Granted, not the best sources, but Panyd has pulled up some nice ones. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 6 reliable sources including a national broadcast in America. He meets WP:GNG if nothing else. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:34, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, even in Berkeley, where he was profiled in 2002 in an edition of the University of California newspaper. [5]. There have been plenty of mentions of people named "Mark Hawthorne" in the news [6] and only a few of them seem to have been about this person [7]. Mandsford (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's plenty more news coverage out there. And notability is less about our individual opinions about what should be important and more about what is actually being noted. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current citations in the BLP are of the highest quality - for example, a full New York Times essay about this person. David Eppstein has shown that many more could be added to verify notability. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage.--Beware the Unknown (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2010 (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.