Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Boutin (journalist)

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 (non-admin closure), as the consensus has both determined the notability of the subject and provided reliable sources verifying this notability. The article will benefit from editing and the addition of this new information. Regarding COI, User:Paul Boutin has been inactive on Wikipedia for over two years. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Boutin (journalist)

Non-notable writer; unsourced claims with "footnotes" to entire books; COI editing by one or more accounts believed to be the subject. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Failed PROD removed by admin with note: "sufficiently notable journalist==exact sources would help." Procedural nom - reasons listed are those from original prod. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If he meets notability standards per WP:BIO, there is no need to meet the secondary criteria in WP:CREATIVE. In my opinion he is notable per WP:BIO basic criteria. See: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] LinguistAtLarge 15:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In-depth interview on NPR as shown here [6]. Looked to as expert as shown here [7]. I believe he meets our guidelines for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Regarding COI are we reading the same guidelines? First, it does not say anywhere it is prohibited. As long as the piece it is written in a NPOV position, no problem. Second, COI is not a valid reason for deletion of an article. However, if I have misread the guideline I apologize and would ask that you point me to the area I overlooked. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 17:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Linguist and Shoessss. Not much more to say, I agree with them. — neuro^(talk) 17:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient sources. Collectonian actually proposed this for speedy as A7; Orange Mike changed it to a prod, which I removed, because i thought it would pass here. DGG (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provided the refs in here are copied to the article (either as ref or in further reading). Also "unsourced claims with "footnotes" to entire books" is a contrast in terms. Something that is unsourced cannot have footnotes to a book, the mere fact of pointing to a book, means it's supposed to be a source. The idea that they didn't mention a page number is hardly a reason for deletion and can be fixed by editing. Heck, we could even ask Cory Doctorow for the exact page number if we have to. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:43, 17 December 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.