Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Garrison

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 no consensus. Given that we have two editors wishing to keep the article and two editors wishing to delete (including the nominator) and the discussion has been relisted twice for an extra two weeks without further comments, a no consensus close is the most sensible outcome. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 10:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Garrison[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. Previous incarnations of this article were subject to speedy deletion, deleted, and re-created by the same user in 48 hours. It appears this person is marginally notable. I'm leaning towards keeping, but after working to clean it up, I am not so certain any more. Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#politicians applies. Please discuss. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 June 4. Snotbot t • c » 18:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have included citations for all sourced materials for this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerahn (talk • contribs) 19:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Sourcing has been much improved. Bearian (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Deletion is not clean up and the improvements have been great for pushing notability. Should be kept under the circumstances. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources currently cited one is an announcement from Garrison's employer[1], three have no more than a mention of his name[2][3][4] and the rest don't mention him at all. On what grounds do the keepers above claim that this amounts to notability? I note that the nominator has withdrawn his delete opinion, but would ask that this should not be treated as a reason for speedy keeping until a proper examination has been conducted of the available sources, which I will try to do by tomorrow. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my analysis of the current sources above and my inability to find significant coverage in any other independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:27, 19 June 2013 (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.