Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Levine (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   no consensus. MuZemike 01:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dave Levine
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The article was deleted by AfD in June 2009 and, from memory, this current article is essentially the same as the one that was deleted. The unanimous verdict in June was "delete" for the following reasons: ''Paid insertion into Wikipedia. Self promotion. Marginal notability per WP:BIO, not notable, spamvertisement, not even notable by association. Corp he founded had its article speedily deleted, spam, spam and clear Self Promotion and fails WP:BIO and WP:N, the article does not show notability--for the reason that the subject is apparently not notable, paid, unsourced article about a non-notable person'' Brumski (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  —Brumski (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has at least one valid reference: http://www.dailynewstribune.com/state/x1059361235, and the Fox Business News interview with Dave Levine is probably valid as well. We all recognize the problems inherent in COI, but many good articles started off as COI ones. If the references are enough to pass the general notability guideline, then keep the article and edit it vigorously. – Eastmain (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. \//\ - 09:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Week keep per Eastmain.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Was "speedy delete as an article previously deleted under AfD" not valid? Ironholds (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom, non-notable (a one or two times reference in a business news hardly makes one notable). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 23:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Unhappy keep. Subject appears to satisfy the coverage requirements of the GNG. Article is plainly not "essentially the same" as the previous deleted version because the previous AFD was June 2009, and the article discusses August 2009 TV appearances, which were particularly prominent due to the notoriety that came to the program involved, and the August 2009 coverage by the Wall St Journal's "Speakeasy" column, which is a strong indicator of notability. Some people don't really deserve to be notable, but we bite the bullet and cover them anyway when they satisfy our criteria. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 11:30, 5 December 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.