Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leopoldo Gout

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. MBisanz ^talk 21:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leopoldo Gout[edit]

Non-notable author. Prod was removed by a new IP who said that since we have articles on South Park episodes, we should have an article about him. Out of all the sources mentioned in the article, the only source independent of the author that gives more than a mention is this Variety article. CyberGhostface (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - peripheral film figure (some sort of associate of James Patterson), non-notable author; only argument of the IP who yanked the prod was that he is an "upcoming" writer (I assume that's meant to be "up and coming", not "upcoming"). The IP is not totally "new", Cyber: it was previously templated for a very brief streak of vandalism; but let's certainly AGF and figure it's a dynamic IP reassigned. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain I am the author of this article and I don't understand why Gout is considered non-notable, nor why out of the resources listed only one is considered an independent source. Does IMDb not count as a viable resource? Also, the author page for "Ghost Radio" is hosted by HarperCollins, the publisher -- another outside source. I can certainly provide more article / interview sources if need be, but I would be grateful for some clarification and/or guidance. MissusMorris (talk) 18:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)MissusMorris[reply]
- IMDB, like Wikipedia, isn't considered a reliable source by itself. If anything, it's less reliable than Wikipedia. And Harper Collins wouldn't be considered an "outside source" as it's affiliated with the subject.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood. I have now updated the entry to list hopefully more acceptable sources. If there is anything else I can do or should be doing, please let me know. MissusMorris (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)MissusMorris — MissusMorris (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Please provide us with sources that indicate the subject's notability. Links to reviews of his book, of a movie he was associated with, etc. are not the substantial coverage of the subject required to establish notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I don't agree with the reason to deprod (still necessary, however, to deprod), but it looks like sufficient coverage via reliable secondary sources are there to provide plenty of notability. MuZemike 02:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 22:46, 7 April 2009 (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.