Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Cross


 * 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 speedy keep per WP:SK. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Alan Cross

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Citations provided here either lack independence (www.alancross.ca/about-me/ et al.), reliability (BlogTO), or come from sources without at least regional circulation (the Toronto Star, Post City). The article on this person requires evidence of non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources with a broader readership base than city newspapers in order to be retained. Right now it doesn't have it, and my own search for such sources turned up nothing that looked like it would qualify— being a radio broadcaster and having a website are not evidence of notability (though sorry, Bearcat). KDS 4444 Talk  00:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: the Toronto Star typically has the highest circulation of any Canadian newspaper, so while it's got "Toronto" in the name, I believe it's a strong source. The article's current sourcing isn't great, but there are three solid articles about Cross in the Toronto Star: here, here, and here. There are also articles from the National Post, the Financial Post, and the Toronto Sun (the latter is admittedly a tabloid, but still offers some coverage). While some of these articles deal with the same topic (his relationship with Edge 102.1), I think there's enough varied discussion here to show WP:BIO notability. Thanks, /wiae   /tlk  01:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. A sourced article about the host of multiple nationally syndicated shows. Here's another source from the Toronto Star  and other sources are apparent in searches. I don't think deletion of this sort of content improves Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of Canadian radio.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Notable person.-- Musa  Talk  03:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  03:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  03:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  03:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Toronto Star coverage is significant, and other sources are find-able per above. Ajraddatz (Talk) 09:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The key notability claim here isn't the fact that he's been a local radio host in regular drive time — it's the facts that (a) his longrunning radio documentary program The Ongoing History of New Music has been nationally syndicated on radio stations extending all the way across Canada, and (b) the guy's written and published several books. The only reason the sourcing is inadequate here is that the article was created in 2005, a time when our sourcing requirements were a lot looser than they are now, and just didn't get improved as quickly as our RS standards evolved — the rule really once was that no sources at all had to be cited in the article, as long as the facts were verifiable if someone went looking for verification on their own time and dime. (I agree that sounds, and was, absolutely idiotic given all we've learned since then about how determined some people are to fill Wikipedia with PR bullshit and hoaxes and attack edits — but it is the way the rules were at one time, so we have to at least try to determine if an article created that long ago is salvageable before we run it out the door for not already being fully compliant with current standards.) At any rate, he gets over 200 hits on ProQuest, which means the sourcing does exist to get this back up to snuff. They won't all be useful or substantive sources, I admit, but even if just five or six of them are actually viable that would still be enough to satisfy GNG — and more than five or six of them will be viable, because even when I add "ongoing history of new music" to the search string to filter it further I still get 65 hits which nationalize to Ottawa and Calgary and Edmonton and Vancouver and Winnipeg and Halifax and St. John's and Victoria. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Now up to 16 sources. Content that was edging in an advertorial direction removed. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Nomination withdrawn by nominator KDS 4444  Talk  13:00, 25 February 2016 (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.