Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Smalley (editor)


 * 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. most of the keep votes fail to refute the nomination since they argue about "notability" rather than adress the issue of independent sourcing. No independent reliable sources means no article. Scott Mac (Doc) 22:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

David Smalley (editor)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. I cannot find any reliable third-party sources on this person. The only sources are from first-party publications and YouTube. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Article fails WP:BIO. --White Trillium (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- In WP, "notable" is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Wikipedia's goal "to be the most comprehensive encyclopedia on the planet, Wikipedia ought to contain articles on topics that other encyclopedias contain". MithrasPriest (talk)
 * Comment - Incorrect, in Wikipedia, notable is defined as being the subject of multiple, reliable sources independent of the subject. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Does not fail WP:BIO. -- Geĸrίtzl (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - In particular, he fails being the subject of "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer - see new citations. It does pass that criterion. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - How do any of these pass WP:RS? Facebook, YouTube, and Wordpress never have, and never will. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Editor of American Atheist magazine! Spacelib (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - How exactly is this a criteria for keeping a biography? As of now, there are no reliable, third-party sources in this article, and I can't find any. If the only sources available come from a magazine he edits (thus first-party) and YouTube, then this article fails the general notability guide. I am afraid that your rationale looks like a simple I like it vote. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer - I've added two more citations: One from Wordpress and one from TOPIX. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - as editor of a notable magazine it would be very difficult to avoid being mentioned in third party publications (just common sense) Greg Bard 23:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Would you care to provide any of these? Assuming that reliable sources exist does not mean they do. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Answer - How about the announcement notice from a church that held a debate with "David Smalley, editor of American Atheist"? Added to citations. Geĸrίtzl (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that none of these pass WP:RS. A church newsletter, wordpress, which allows anyone to post about anything, and YouTube do not have the level of editorial oversight to be considered reliable under current policy. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's nothing here that meets WP:RS. Notability of magazine does not imply notability of editor. » Swpbτ • ¢ 04:33, 17 April 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.