Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosimo Filane


 * 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   no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 05:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cosimo Filane

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Businessman and musician of strictly local small-town notability; no sources to demonstrate notability. Article was previously prodded in 2009, but the prod template was removed by an anonymous IP with no rationale or article improvement. I should note as well that the IP resolves to Shaw Cable — a company whose service area just happens to include the town Mr. Filane lives in — on a DNS search; although this doesn't definitively prove WP:COI involvement by itself, it certainly points that way when you combine it with everything else. Delete it. Bearcat (talk) 22:18, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Quite well known as a "personality" in northwestern Ontario. Certainly as notable as the many, many punk rockers and their albums that have Wikipedia entries. Enough on Google books list to show notability and give a road-map to improve article. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Reasons listed above. WikiManOne (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - He is apparently notable enough to have been written about in these books, , and his composition mentioned here. -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean by being an extremely well-known "character" in his region. I doubt the local and regional newspapers archives are available on the Internet but I know this guy is famous in Thunder Bay and northwestern Ontario, does a lot of telethons, etc., and has a sort of cult following. This article simply needs work, not deletion.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Famous in Thunder Bay" isn't the baseline standard for inclusion in an international encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Then I think we should start sorting through all of these one-CD punk bands, subway station entries and other trivial entries, based on your patronizing remark.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, go for it, you'll get all the support I can offer. But read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS first. Bearcat (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would really like to see you address the material that has shown up in the books found on Google, rather than engage in Wikilawyering.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pointing to a policy statement is not "wikilawyering". And the books you found mention the topic under discussion here only in passing, which means they fail the requirement that sources demonstrate substantial coverage that's specifically about him — a person is not notable just because they garner a couple of trivial passing mentions in a couple of articles or books about something else. I've been mentioned by name in as many published works as this, and that doesn't make me notable. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're getting awfully emotional about this. Maybe you are notable. maybe you are just too modest. The books do talk about place Filane's place in the local lore and culture. I have traveled in that part of the country and you really can't miss the guy -- the signs, his records in local stores, his book on minor hockey, etc. Don't get too worked up if this afd doesn't fly and don't put yourself down.Spoonkymonkey (talk)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: The books demonstrate sufficient coverage by reliable, independent sources to be notable under the GNG. Local characters can indeed be notable enough for an international encyclopedia, provided that there is extensive coverage in reliable, independent sources about them. Buddy431 (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Also featured on an episode of Out Your Way, a nationaly broadcat tv series (ref The Globe and Mail, 8 October 1987, "Memo sets target of 95 per cent More Canadian content CBC goal" by Hohn Haslett Cuff). duffbeerforme (talk)
 * Delete no coverage in citations, clearly not notable for wikipedia. I see he is mentioned in a book, sorry but minor mentions in minor publications doesn't assert notability imo. Off2riorob (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Why was this relisted? The consensus seems clear to me.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 11:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is uncited with no assertion of notablility. Do you have any intention of improving it? Off2riorob (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have already started to improve it, and I believe the books on Google do show notability. As well, despite what you've said, he's been written up in more than one book and had a TV documentary done on him.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 15:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus isn't a "first past the post" vote. Generally, you can't close a discussion as either a keep or a delete until that option has at least two-thirds support; anything less than that, the options are to close as "no consensus" or to relist. Four keeps to three deletes isn't two-thirds. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * SpoonkMonkey, you say you have already started to improve the BLP but you appear to have only added two uncited comments to the article? 12:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)
 * I haven't had time to do much more. I've been extremely busy these past few days. Don't forget, I am a volunteer.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2010 (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.