Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David mason (mason)


 * 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   keep. Listed for 10 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

David mason (mason)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No evidence from WP:RS that subject meets WP:BIO. -- Kinu t /c  02:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals 1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. 4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
 * Well there's and a simple Google Web search for "David "Stoney" Mason" shows he's definately notable in Vermont, but I'm not sure it's enough to meet WP:GNG. --  &oelig; &trade; 05:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well looking at your link, I have to restate my opinion that "Creative professionals

David meets 1 and 4 of these. I will try to get more links in. Do they have to be online?Gloern (talk) 15:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — &oelig; &trade; 03:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The key to WP:RS is sources that are numerous and non-trivial. Sources that merely mention him and in which he is not the primary subject (such as the website and guide linked on the article) are generally discounted, and a few articles about a subject are usually insufficient to show that the subject meets WP:BIO. -- Kinu t /c  05:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your POV and if that were the guidelines I would concede but there is nothing about the argument that you make in your linked page (WP:RS)and more interestingly that is not what it says in WP:GNG. It says "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."  Since it is a short bio of each of the artists or award winners, each of them would be considered more than a trivial mention while no one being the main topic.  So while he might still not be fully notable (thus this AfD), your argument lacks standing as per the stated guidelines.Gloern (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep His notability seems clear enough from the sources. Hey, he was asked to build a wall in the White House. The article needs improvement, and I suspect that is part of the problem. I wanted to move it to capitalize his last name but was not sure if that would mess up the AfD.Borock (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved the page to David Mason (mason) per WP:NCP. It shouldn't be a problem but anybody using a script to close this discussion needs to be aware of it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - WP:GNG, WP:PROF, and WP:CREATE only require in-field or local notability, but this is pushing it. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 26 September 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.