Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charley Marcuse


 * 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. Now that promotional material is removed, the sourcing can be looked at to help determine GNG - which as argued is weak, but existent the panda ₯’  10:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Charley Marcuse

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non existent notability, and if this is "notable "under the GNG, it's the best proof yet that the GNG is useless for an encyclopedia. Promotional as well, including information of how to order his T-shirts.

Accepted at AfC.  DGG ( talk ) 21:32, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  22:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Overly promotional, but that's fixable. Fixed. The guy seems notable to me. He's gotten A LOT of press. I'm not sure I understand what you mean about GNG being useless. Bali88 (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant the GNG is worthless as an appropriate tool for deciding on what is included in WP, if the  human interest coverage received is considered to make this individual notable enough for coverage, because it leads to a result that harms the credibility of WP  as an information resource.  DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're being a little harsh. Human interest stories if substantially covered would seem to be appropriate to cover as long as they aren't related only to one event. This one seems borderline, but I don't see why a long time hawker who develops fame and a product line can't be notable? Perhaps the way the article was written was more of a problem? Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I disagree that it harms the credibility. The way that I look at it, wikipedia should include all facets of life. If it's important enough to have a decent amount of ongoing news coverage, it's important enough to have a wikipedia article. I can't see how it could harm the credibility of it. It surprises me that you would argue to keep UFO's in outer space, but argue to delete this one. To me they seem similar in terms of media coverage and "seriousness". Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to criticize you, I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from! :-) Bali88 (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I worked on the article a bit and fixed the majority of the sourcing issues as well as the tone and NPOV issues. Bali88 (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This guy looks like he's good at self-promotion.  I hate to reward that, but he's got coverage in 2004 from the Sun-Sentinel and Toledo Blade; in 2010 from ESPN; in 2013 from the Los Angeles Times; and in 2014 from the Detroit News.  That seems like continuing, significant coverage from a wide variety of sources.  In a sane world, my favorite academics would have articles and hot dog vendors wouldn't, but this is the world we live in. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep, for someone that sells hot dogs and now is a mustard salesman, he seems to have gotten a surprising amount of coverage, as outlined above. Meets the WP:GNG quite easily.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:34, 31 May 2014 (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.