Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Edward Battista

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. the !vote by the anonymous IP must be discounted because its only edit is this AfD discussion. If better sources can be found then consider deletion review (you could do it anyway, but more sources would help the case) Valley2city^‽ 03:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Edward Battista[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because I believe it does not assert the notability of the subject; specifically, the subject does not meet any of the WP:BIO guideline's conditions for creative professionals. The article reads more like a resume than an objective piece about a notable person. Furthermore, I believe there may be some WP:COI/WP:Autobiography issues, as the original author and main contributor has the username User:EddieB317, a name very similar to that of the subject's (Thomas Edward Battista). Aka042 (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is from a reliable source. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Thomas Edward Battista[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is significant to Indianapolis.
Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. No significant coverage in reliable sources, doesn't meet any of the criteria for inclusion. Lara 21:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not believe that the article noted by Eastmain is sufficient to show notability. With this depth of coverage we need to see several similar articles. Kevin (talk) 21:59, 22 October 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.