Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Youra (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. The general consensus here is that the subject is not adequately notable. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Dan Youra
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is about a nonnotable businessman that fails WP:BIO as he hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. The original AfD closed as a keep over a year ago, although I can not see anything more than trivial coverage of this individual. Some passing mention has been made about the lawsuit related to his company, but nothing especially distinguishing regarding his biography. There also seems to be a serious conflict of interest with the creator.  Them From  Space  23:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the references are sufficient. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A review of the references shows that the first covers his company, the second is a only a passing mention, the third is not independant of the subject, and the last is from a small local news organization. This is far short of the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that WP:N requires for articles.  Them From  Space  01:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Throwing Google at this guy and leaving out wikipedia produces page after page of directory entries and redundant links to twitter and flickr and whatever this UToons thing is (it doesn't seem to be notable either). GNews produces exactly nothing. As far as I can tell he's "notable" in any sense only for a flash-in-the-pan trademark scuffle of no especial importance. I would also note that in the year since the last AFD the article has hardly been touched. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete I looked for any mention outside his own webpage or Wikipedia mirrors and couldn't find anything either. Pirate Argh!!1! 09:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I voted keep, above. I added some further references. I would argue that an article about his company counts the same as an article about him, since my impression is that it's a two-person business. The travel writers association reference I moved to external links, since I agree that it is not independent of the subject. I think that notability is now established. Some of these references will not show up on a Google search, but are still valid, since the links are to a scanned PDF on his site. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't lack of references; it's that the article says nothing that is really notable. Mangoe (talk) 19:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 00:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP: Eastmain puts forward a good case. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Which references do you feel establish notability? I've looked over them all again and I still fail to see significant coverage of him, or any thing that he has done which deserves mention in an encyclopedia.  Them  From  Space  17:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Verifiability is NOT the same thing as notability.  There's not a single reference here that establishes notability.  Even if a million references could be found, and none of them established notability, those million references would be beside the point.  There are people who appear to believe that just because something or someone is mentioned a few times on the Internet, the entity is therefore notable according to WP standards.  But this is not the case.  This gentleman simply owns his own non-notable company.  We're not here to provide WP:SPAM for him.  Qworty (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't see any establishment of notability here -Drdisque (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2009 (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.