Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Busbee

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 delete. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Busbee[edit]

I've tried to do what I could as far as sources for this article, but aside from a few shaky web interviews I don't see much of note. It's nearly impossible to verify anything at all apart from his religious beliefs and some name-dropping. I don't think this qualifies for a speedy because it does assert notability, it doesn't seem to make any contentious claims about the subject, and there are (arguably) a couple of sources. I wouldn't be opposed to recreation of the article if and when notability can be better established through reliable sources. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Notability is not based on the number of references, but that there are references that focus on the articles subject. AlbinoFerret (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's based on significant coverage by multiple, reliable sources. I'm the one who added the two that are already there, and even I can admit they're pretty weak. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello! i am mike busbee. this article is a inaccurate in its details and poorly represents the totally of my career. i would kindly like to request is deletion. thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.145.243 (talk) 08:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - please don't forget that sources that establish notability must be secondary sources. The two references (both interviews) are not secondary sources, so notability has not been established. Remember WP:BLP, Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. If I were the nominator I would probably have prodded this. Cheers! --Samuel Tan 07:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources are preferred for notability, but not required for verifiability. Published interviews are sufficient for BLP. If they weren't, I'd have speedy deleted the article.

I don't use prod. I've been against it from the start. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 14:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't sources that prove notability need to be secondary sources? Hence no secondary sources can be found means not notable, no? :) -Samuel Tan 04:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, don't get me wrong - you're 100% right about the notability part, as far as I can tell. I was just saying that's why I didn't speedy it (because they're good enough to avoid BLP problems, and non-notability isn't a CSD). Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 05:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you were talking about why you didn't speedy delete oops! Knock my head the next time you see me *grin* -Samuel Tan 05:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, other wise we can merge to similar articles.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 01:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

very weak keep Generally interviews are reliable sources and they indicate that the individual in question has been noted by the general media (which is part of the point of the notability criterion). JoshuaZ (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to be independent coverage at this time and where the subject requests deletion and the notability is in question, I see no reason why not. Shell ^babelfish 08:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hang on, where did the subject request deletion? I don't see that int he discussion at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well right up above as 75.84.145.243 and in an OTRS ticket 2008071810023147. Shell ^babelfish 12:56, 23 July 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.