Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Graham

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 userfy to User:Sydneysider1979/Craig Graham. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Graham[edit]

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

1. notability - as a bio, there is no source about the person 2. for WP:AUTHOR yes there is a book, but no backing for the unverified claims of bestselling or even mention of him in the quoted refs (apart from a passing mention in one) 3. creation of a COI promo article Widefox (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC) (added Widefox (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC) )[reply]

Userfy not delete: considering how it has improved (but still has weak sourcing as a BLP article) I am happy to compromise from delete to userfy. Is everyone in favour of userfying instead of deleting? Widefox (talk) 11:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Userify - I have knowledge of Craig Graham and his work, and he is indeed a Children's author, as well as having worked for both the 7 and 9 networks as a producer. I am happy to do as much reference hunting as I can manage, it won't be tonight as it's almost 3.20am where I am - but if you find it absolutely necessary to take this work out of articlespace, please userify it. MarkBurberry32|talk 02:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep producer of several notable Australian television shows, agree the sourcing is incorrect and the article needs cleanup, hopefully Mark can clean it up before the discussion closes, and it will meet The Heymann Standard.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Just thought I should mention BLP prod is there for a reason. Userify would be sensible. Widefox (talk) 03:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't eligable for BLP PROD, as some of the sources back statements in the article (such as this one), although I would certainly prefer userfication over deletion in this case. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with all comments. It does need tidying up and with the right help, I hope it can stay. Sorry if I deleted the notice. I misunderstood (still very new to this) - Thanks for bearing with me Sydneysider1979 (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Sydneysider1979 — Sydneysider1979 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
For the record Sydneysider1979, you are a new WP:SPA - do you have a conflict of interest? You work at an Australian online PR and marketing agency and are involved in TV and authorship right? (from your original username) I advised you to get some experience editing other articles but you keep coming back to this one, why? Widefox (talk) 11:25, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or Userfy), more refs have been added which are great, but none of them mention Graham in any detail, either mentioning him as an aside or not talking about him at all. This isn't a reflection on the quality of his work, which I'm sure is quite good, but he does not appear to meet the notability guidelines of WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
WP:GNG test is likelihood of available references, not references in the Wikipedia article. There are two troubles. First, his name is so common that it's hard to search out reference material on him. I did not find any article having "Craig Graham" and "television producer" in them, which, based on the lead of the Wikipedia article, is the crux of the reason why others would write about him. I did find a few articles having "Craig Graham" and "children's books" in them (about the above noted Craig Graham), but not enough on which to develop a biographical article. (Let me throw an additional reference bone in to the mix: The Advertiser (Adelaide)[1]). The second problem is that the development of the article is towards a resume of Craig Graham rather than a biography of Craig Graham. On balance, I lean towards delete, but can't say delete or keep at this time. If this were AfD2, I would say delete. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the references are sufficient (btw, the GNG is about neither the mere likelihood of available references, not their presence in the text of the article at any particular moment, but their existence. That the exist has been shown--they should of course be added DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 30 April 2012 (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.