Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Jordan Legan

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. Neıl 龱 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jordan Legan

Non notable writer, zero references. Rtphokie (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a 1.5 year old article on a personality with no WP:RS or WP:V sources. Artene50 (talk) 04:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is no longer unreferenced. I added a reference to an article in The New York Times. Sometimes references appear in the body of an article rather than at the end. The article mentioned an article which appeared pm "the cover of the New York Times Arts & Leisure section", and I added it as a reference. See also this Google News archive search to confirm the Slate and NPR activity. -- Eastmain (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for finding that reference but a single article on a proposed TV series that never got made doesn't seem sufficient to me to establish notability. WP:BIO tells us that "if the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability"--Rtphokie (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a large range of small accomplishments, can translate into notability --T-rex 03:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - marginal figure who has never achieved notability; fails the substantial coverage and all other tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and above. Undeath (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep added easily found references. Did anyone even bother to look? Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New your times cover makes notable.Yobmod (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - not if that's all there is. One article, in the least important section of the NYT, is not sufficient, per the multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability language quoted above by Rtphokie --Orange Mike | Talk 15:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment - however, that is not all that there is --T-rex 16:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new cites found TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 15:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is now reasonably well sourced. PhilKnight (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - there's an additional view about the article on the talk page by Richard Arthur Norton. PhilKnight (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That was a "holdon" that kept it from being speedied, speedy is way overused, no one even does a Google search to see if the person is notable. People keep using the notable=biggest or fastest definition, and not that the "media takes note" definition. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2008 (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.