Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bunny Roger

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. John254 01:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bunny Roger[edit]

Biographical article on person with zero asserted notability. The only refs are obituaries, which don't truly count. Only one page links there. Reywas92^Talk 18:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why don't obituaries truly count? The Independent is a major national newspaper, not a local paper which publishes "vanity" obituaries, so to have an obituary there establishes notability per WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." And the number of pages linking to the article is totally irrelevant - where in policy or guidelines does it state that that is a reason for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't, but nothing linking to it is often a sign of non-notability. So he dies and an independent obit was in a newpaper, but what are his assertions of notability? Please explain why a couturier who throws lavish parties is notable. See if you can find any other references to establish his notability more strongly. According to WP:N, the links presume him notable, but don't guarantee it. Again, even if the obits are independent, why does that assert notability? Reywas92^Talk 19:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability can be asserted; the current sources aren't enough. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - squarely satisfies the notability guideline for people. The Independent is a major reliable source, a major daily newspaper, and wrote an article entirely devoted to him. Notability guidelines say nothing of sources being disqualified for being obituaries, or for persons being in the fashion industry. The New York Times in one article calls him "famous" and his events "legendary." [1] Famous and legendary are certainly notable. Articles like this round out our coverage of the London society and fashion scene of the 1960s through 1990s, a curious but not trivial subject. Wikidemo (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with Wikidemo (talk · contribs) and Phil Bridger (talk · contribs) - WP:V is satisfied, and looks like there is coverage in other independent sources to allow future article expansion as well. Cirt (talk) 20:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep Wikidemo has demonstrated that he has been noticed. --Kevin Murray (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known society figure in his day. Who made up the rule that obituaries in major national newspapers (well, the Independent anyway) don't count as sources? Nick mallory (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such rule. A better rule is that children should be seen but not heard. Obvious keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable by virtue of having been noted -- Masterzora (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep As creator, I had heard of Roger's dandism and fashion nous, and so created the article. An obit in the Indy certainly justifies notability. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At first glance he doesn't seem notable, but after reading the sources I feel he is. I thought that NY Times article was referenced? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:50, 17 December 2007 (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.