Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Kuban


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Adam Kuban

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

not notable, mostly an aggregation of blog links Jonathan Williams (talk) 00:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion on this subject one way or the other, but I think he's marginally notable. He does have four or five relatively popular websites to his name, FWIW. Perhaps adding articles about the more popular of those sites, e.g. Slice while deleting this page would make more sense. Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment- There's significant coverage for him through news results. To mention a few :; . The first set mentions his websites in particular, the second set includes articles that (in some cases extensively) quote him. In all cases, he is considered a prominent critic through his websites, particularly on pizza and hamburgers. There isn't much biographical coverage, except from Gothamist through a source already in the article, . Now considering that this person falls under WP:CREATIVE, I think he somehow passes criterion #1. I'd reserve my vote for the moment and would like to see what others think of this coverage. Leave  Sleaves  15:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 03:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   --  Raven1977 Talk to me My edits  07:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;  neuro  (talk)  00:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The combination of his websites getting substantial write ups in papers like the New York Times and his getting mentions indicates this should be kept. Whether to include the websites in this article or him in them, is a discussion for the article's talk page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep But in all this time, shouldn't someone have actually added the refs? For that matter, shouldn't the nominator have looked for them, even the author did not.? DGG (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.