Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad ascalon


 * 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. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  22:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Brad ascalon

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

Living person of dubious notability. The article has some claims of notability (e.g. his profile in Wallpaper*) but no references at all to back them up. The article appears to have been created after an earlier article, under the name Brad Ascalon, was repeatedly created and deleted before being protected from creation. I would have nominated it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD, but it turns out that does not apply to articles previously deleted by the WP:PROD or WP:CSD processes, so decided to take it here instead. Terraxos (talk) 03:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As a further note, it seems an article was previously deleted under this name as well. Someone has been trying very hard to get this person's biography onto Wikipedia... Terraxos (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Despite the explicit claims of notability in the article, it seems that someone has been trying very hard to get this article deleted. I'm not sure what the purpose was of adding a prod tag and then creating an AfD five minutes later, but one edit conflict later and the article has a reliable source to support the claim of notability. I will try to expand the article further, but the Notability standard is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 03:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia isn't for the "up-and-coming"; it's for the "up-and-arrived". Clarityfiend (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Notability policy talks about independent coverage in reliable sources, nothing about coming vs. arrived. Is there any Wikipedia policy that justifies deletion? Alansohn (talk) 03:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete Keep Single source only. Per improved sources. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable --Mhking (talk) 04:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alansohn. There are two sources referred to in the article - the Philadelphia Inquirer story on him, and the Wallpaper* international top 10 list of "most wanted" young designers  Someone should link to the latter story.  2RS =N. John Z (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Wallpaper* doesn't and won't count until enough information is added that it can be found by a person trying to look it up in a collection that has either an electronic or paper copy. Feel free to add that while the AfD is in process. Jclemens (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is zero doubt that the reference exists, which is enough on any natural interpretation of the general notability criterion. The refs do not have to be provided in the article for purposes of deletion.John Z (talk) 19:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I doubt it exists. Poof, certainty evaporates. Rather than dispute here, find the reference and add it to the article, and I'll gladly change my !vote to keep. Jclemens (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If one wants to engage in skeptical doubt, why would one doubt the existence of references any less after they have been added to an article, or linked to, or even apparently physically held in one's hand? One can always say Poof.  This isn't a serious example, but references sometimes can be difficult to find.  But, once significant, reliable references have been proven to exist by objective evidence, the consensus has always been that that is enough for AfD.   Many articles have been kept on much less.  In any case, Ascalon's site has pdfs of the *wallpaper and a philadelphia magazine piece on him, I'll put in the links.John Z (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue date and page number would have been sufficient--as they were lacking before. Unfortunately, without information that Ascalon's site has a license to display those pages, the link itself violates WP:ELNEVER as linking to copyrighted material.  Regardless, you did provide proof that a second RS existed, and I'm changing my !vote accordingly. Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2008 (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.