Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Malnick


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Luigi30 (&Tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa;) 02:47, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Edward Malnick
NN Biography on a "teen critic." Google search of the name turns out 845 hits, of the name + "independent on sunday" turns up 85, and the name + "critic" turns up 36. Possible candidate for speedy, but the author keeps removing the speedy tag, so I figured this was easier. In short, Non-notable biography. Delete. jfg284 you were saying? 11:38, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO. It doesn't qualify for speedy, however (stating the subject has articles published in newspapers is a claim of notability). PJM 12:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Haeleth has pointed out below that this person satisfies the "published authors" criterion of WP:BIO. Uncle G 20:10, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep 845 hits is significent, more than a lot of small biogs on wikipedia &mdash;preceding unsigned comment by 172.214.49.223 (talk &bull; contribs)
 * Comment Just want to point out that someone had tagged it for speedy at first, the author removed the tag, i reverted the removal, he removed it once again, and then i placed it here. I agree, it's not really a speedy candidate; what i meant by possible candidate was that it was suggested for speedy by another user first.  that was unclear. sorry.  jfg284 you were saying? 12:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I've got a lot of respect for Wikipedia and its mods, but deleting this is just ridiculous!!! This all seems t have come about because ONE person decided to place a 'speedy' on it. Please just restore it on the site, mods. &mdash;preceding unsigned comment by 172.214.49.223 (talk &bull; contribs)
 * I only get 221 hits and most are not about the subject in question: . Also, Google hits aren't the one and only indicator as to whether a bio should be included. Please see WP:BIO. PJM 14:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - verifiably published in The Independent on Sunday and The Telegraph. Both these articles explicitly mention that the writer is a teenager, so I think it's safe to assume they're the right person. Being published in multiple major national newspapers at the age of 15 is, I think, a valid claim to notability. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 17:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I wish to settle this dispute with a quote from the 'what is allowed' of Wikipedia biogs: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more". Al of the newspapers (periodicals) in question have a circulation way over 5,000. &mdash;preceding unsigned comment by 172.214.49.223 (talk &bull; contribs)
 * Comment Please vote only once. You have voted "Keep" now three times, and if someone looks quickly over the debate, it seems like there are twice as many  keep votes as there really are because of it.  Secondly, you are partially right: that is what it says in WP:BIO.  However, bear in mind that many people are published daily / weekly in a letters to the editor section, so not every single person who is published really deserves an entry.  My friend's mom has had a letter of hers published in People.  That doesn't mean she deserves an article here.  Secondly, this does not "settle this dispute;"  consensus settles the discussion.  Thirdly, please sign your comments.  Fourthly, now that I've said all that, I really don't know whether or not he was featured as a real contributing editor or if he was featured in some kind of smaller, bit-writing roll.  I'mm keeping my vote delete based on the google results, but if someone can provide me with a source that he was really contributing to these newspapers - and in a relatively meaningful way - I'd be sure to change my vote.  jfg284 you were saying? 20:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Are the hyperlinks to the actual articles, supplied above, unsatisfactory? Uncle G 20:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Not sure if getting a few reviews published is that big of a deal unless it's a regular gig. Jasmol 00:32, 5 December 2005 (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.