Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claude J. Pelletier


 * 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 Userfy to User:BOZ. I would suggest to BOZ, if they are not able to improve the article to the point of establishing separate notability, that the draft be converted to a redirect to Protoculture Addicts, which was the other possible outcome here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Claude J. Pelletier

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Created a notable magazine (Protoculture Addicts) and was an editor and contributor to it. Therefore his reviews may be quoted by others, but I'm not sure he is notable by himself. Was a guest at "Otakuthon 2009", but that was all I could find that gave him the focus. Could easily be a redirect to Protoculture Addicts but I don't think he's a likely search term. SephyTheThird (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --SephyTheThird (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I did have one solid source which I used to create this article, and I will see what I can do to find more sources for him. BOZ (talk) 03:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If "Keep" is an unlikely result here, I would ask the closer to consider a move to WP:DRAFT space so that I can work on improving the article further. BOZ (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is of course nothing to stop you from manually copying the article to your own user space to continue working on it at your own pace. My only question is to ask if you think you can de-associate him from the magazine enough to necessitate the separate page. Everything seems to suggest his notoriety comes from being editor. I'm sure the DP9 article could handle that side of his projects just fine as well.SephyTheThird (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Only time will tell if I am able to accomplish that. BOZ (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect per nom. He is synonymous with Protoculture Addicts. He has paneled at multiple conventions because of that magazine, even winning awards in the industry.    About Us shows he is still involved as an owner even if he isn't the editor-in-chief  AngusWOOF  ( bark  •  sniff ) 14:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  06:39, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment In the event of further lack of responses I would change my nomination towards a redirect per Angus.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect as I would've added Delete to enhance my Redirect suggestion but there seems to be enough to at least save, but there's still nothing for solid independent notability. SwisterTwister   talk  00:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I see multiple independent RS'es in the article as it stands now, so the GNG is met. Not the most important person on the Internet, certainly, but one whose 30 year career has shown up in enough RS to merit an article. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as agree with last comment that the article has reliable sources to pass WP:BASIC Atlantic306 (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's debatable that it passes Basic. For starters most of the sources are trivial. He's mentioned in the context of starting or owning the mag but this only serves to further the view he's known purely for the mag or his other company. As Angus stated, his appearances at cons are because of that mag. Some of the sources also have to be eliminated from consideration. The ANN "congratulations" article should be ignored because ANN own the magazine, so clearly not neutral coverage as it is not independent of the subject (which Basic clearly states). Basic could be just as much used as a reason to support deletion as you suggest it is a keep reason. An RS source and a source that proves notability are not necessarily the same thing. SephyTheThird (talk) 00:19, 2 July 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.