Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul William Day (2nd nomination)

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. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul William Day[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP; no improvements have been made since previous AFD nomination. -- Davnor (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Davnor (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources can't be verified (author has admitted most are not available online), and appear to amount to little more than "local interest" coverage, not significant coverage. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with respects to the nominator, I do not believe that waiting just 12 days since the last close to renominate is an appropriate length of time to allow improvements over time. Did you take this to DRV first to contest the non-consensus keep close of 12 days ago? Sources not being online is not a valid reason to delete, and the sources do appear to be more than just "local" coverage, being sources from all over that contenent. Further, even if available sources are all Australian, notable in Australia is notable enough for en.Wikipedia per WP:UNKNOWNHERE. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Comment With respect to Mr. Schmidt, the subject of this article is the owner of a local recording studio who has produced a single, highly amateur film, which has garnered a bit of "hey isn't this interesting" type of local coverage in the Brisbane press. As a musician, he was a member of two bands which also received some local Brisbane press. The only hint of "national" coverage is the purported interview with Midday host Ray Martin. However, since the text of that interview is not available, it is unclear whether that bolsters notability or not. Since the original article was an autobiography, it is fair to assume that claims of notability made in the article are likely exaggerated. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that this is a BLP, I believe it is appropriate to hold the article to stricter standard, and thus a period of nearly two weeks should have been sufficient time to have seen at least some improvement to the article's sources. Nevertheless, if there is a consensus that this was not enough time, then I agree that it would be appropriate to keep the article for now. I also agree that the degree to which the notability is localized should not be a significant factor in the decision. What is at issue, however, is the quality of the sources: are they reliable, and do they provide significant coverage of the subject? The issue of reliablity was raised during the previous debate (see the last comment in particular), and I think the concerns noted there still apply. Regarding the issue of significant coverage, it is unclear whether or not the sources are simply fluff pieces, rather than substantive coverage. Davnor (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment with respects to User:WikiDan61 & nominator User:Davnor. While the original version did not meet BLP, that is no longer the case. The current version meets BLP concerns while the original did not. The Article went through many changes since it was first created by a one-edit SPA as it became property of Wikipedia and other editors looked in. This became THIS... showing that editors were/are interested in making it a decently encyclopedic and sourced article per WP:IMPROVE. If the close was somehow incorrect, a DRV would have been the proper course, rather than a hurried renomination. Policy acknowledges that immediate perfection is not demmanded. So 12 days from a non-disputed close to a renomination of a non-consensus kept article seems just a bit of a hurry, no? If this had not been improved in six months and then returned to AFD, I might be more inclined to agree with you. But this is just too soon back at AFD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note, that the policy to which you referred also states that "This principle is not as broadly endorsed for biographies of living persons." Regarding the degree to which the renomination was too hasty, we must simply agree to disagree. Thanks! Davnor (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 12 days is way too soon to return an article to AFD. ~~I would submit that this nom may look to some like emotional involvement, of some sort, in this particular article~~. I would also like to add that a film being characterized as "amateur" has no bearing on notability. Evalpor (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for your contribution; I respect the opinion that the nomination was too hasty. However, I also respectfully urge caution about implying a bias, emotional or otherwise, without due evidence; especially when that implication is couched in weasel words ("may look to some"). Thank you! Davnor (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Davnor, you are absolutely correct, particularly regarding my use of weasel words. I retract that part of the statement, with apologies to all, most particularly to the nominator. Evalpor (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on the sources found last time, in the previous AFD. They wouldn't interview the guy if he wasn't notable. And whether any of those sources are added to the article or not, isn't relevant. You don't delete an article because you don't like it. You delete it only if the subject is notable. Past evidence proves them notable, so that's it. If you want something added, then you can do it yourself. Dream Focus 10:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "They wouldn't interview the guy if he wasn't notable" is a fairly weak argument. Non-notable people get interviewed all the time. Local interest or local color stories do not generally count as significant coverage, and most of the coverage for Day appears to be of the local color variety. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt - sourcing seems adequate, although not online. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:55, 4 May 2010 (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.