Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drew Chicone


 * 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.  bibliomaniac 1  5  06:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Drew Chicone

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

REFUNDed at DRV after a prod deletion. Zero third-party reliable sources with coverage about the subject, just lists of books and magazines he's written, "fly patterns," etc. Original creator of article has no other edits. IPs from this range have been attempting to promote the subject in various pages. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:03, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 14:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep While the topic of saltwater fly fishing is niche compared to fresh waater, Drew Chicone is well known as a saltwater fly designer, author and instructor. Other fly designers and fly fishing authors like Lefty Kreh who have designed "fly patterns" have pages. I don't know how to add all the sources properly (sorry, I am inexperienced here) but would be willing to attempt to add to them. Here are just some I found by googling his name: Edited this comment to remove list of links as I am adding sources to the article while attempting to improve it and meet required criteria. Mlepisto (talk) 17:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Most of those don't qualify as reliable sources (i.e., press releases, commercial sites). WP:BIO requires substantial depth-of-coverage; Manchester Journal article mentions him briefly; the Florida Sportsman article looks like a press release for one of his books. The Fly Life articles are book plugs as well (interestingly, one has a sub-heading "The art of self-promoting" presumably in reference to the author ). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment That seems kind of speculative. I don't know what someone was thinking when they wrote something. The facts that I do know are that FL Sportsman is a magazine with an online presence like many other magazines (and somewhat of a popular one in FL if you are into fishing) and they are a 3rd party who wrote about the author in question and his books.


 * Notability: I feel the criteria is met. He has received awards in his field, and is widely recognized in that specific field as evidenced by the recognition he has received within that field, from multiple independent sources. As an author and fly designer, he is credited for sharing new techniques and designs, similar to others who have before him and have pages here. He has invented products relating to his field that are produced by other manufacturers that bear his name as the designer or inventor. A couple of examples: https://www.umpqua.com/search.php?search_query=chicone&section=product & https://hareline.com/search?phrase=chicone Mlepisto (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment adding more potential sources to support the keep request. I am not sure how to add the sources to magazines that have no link to a current web article. Again, forgive me for not being fluent in Wiki tech. I realize that video sources are questionable, but I believe the compilation of these sources provide validity to the notability of Drew Chicone in his profession, similar to his forerunners. Further, WP:RS states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" and Drew Chicone has both self published and been published by independent publications for his articles and his books. Edited to remove deluge of sources: as I become more aware of how things work here, I realize that wasn't helpful. Mlepisto (talk) 23:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The policy your quoting regarding reliable sources doesn't apply to notability criteria. See Notability_(people) : ...received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment how does it not apply? The list of multiple secondary sources are listed on this page and include names like Field & Stream, USA Today, and a number of other industry specific awards and coverage who are independent of each other and the subject, unless you believe for some reason the subject or these sources are connected to each other? Also on the same topic, the first bullet point states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" to address your voiced concern of one where the coverage was trivial in your opinion. User:mlepisto —Preceding undated comment added 07:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment (edited): I understand the points brought up in the pending deletion notice/discussion and have decided to attempt to improve this page as an alternative to deletion. I ask for patience (guidance is welcome as well) while I attempt to track down better quality sources and work on the page.Mlepisto (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete this is a vanity article. The sources presented by Mlepisto aren't helpful either as they're mostly unreliable, contributor pieces and not in depth coverage or are small time magazines without a history of meaningful oversight. Praxidicae (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Praxidicae, subject is lacking significant and in-depth coverage from reliable sources. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - I made some minor improvements and am going to go with weak keep. His published work, media appearances and notoriety in the media vacuum surrounding the fly tying industry just squeaks him by. It would be nice to find sources for the unsourced info. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  00:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not know if I am supposed to add this here again as keep or comment? If not, feel free to edit. It is my opinion the article has been significantly improved since it was originally listed to address the delete vote concerns of it being thin and resume like (which I agree were valid at that time) and represents NPOV of Chicone's accomplishments and both media and peer recognition in his industry as supported by credible sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlepisto (talk • contribs) 17:08, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:30, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Article has seriously improved. I would not mind keeping it 100% if it just seemed a bit more encyclopedic and had a few more mainstream sources Idan (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I cannot say that this material and its sources are familiar to me, but I think there is enough here to shown him an expert in his subject.  DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per the article's improvements. WP:BARE as DGG has stated the subject is an expert. Lightburst (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2020 (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.