Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard G. Malley


 * 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. causa sui (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Howard G. Malley

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. red dog six (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Although this is a poorly written start of an article, the March 30, 1985 issue of Billboard confirms that, along with Craig Golin, he was the video producer of We Are The World, the most spectacularly successful rock and roll charity event ever held. A Google Books search verifies several accomplishments not mentioned in the article. He's notable.  Cullen 328   Let's discuss it  07:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Per WP:NRVE, notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. In this case GNews hits and GBooks Hits are sufficient to support a claim of notability. However, the article needs a strong cleanup.  --Cavarrone (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Another tenet needed to establish WP:NOTABILITY requires that the topic has been the subject of "significant coverage". I do not see how the examples you have given are "significant coverage".   They are basically listings of the the subject's name.  "Significant coverage [as defined by Wikipedia] is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Are there any articles beyond just a quick listing of the subject's name?   red dog six  (talk) 17:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * True, all we know that "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability", BUT the guideline also says: "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability".--Cavarrone (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Has "he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources?" I would question if list his name really meets this criteria. My best to you.  red dog six  (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I agree with reddogsix. The things he's done are notable, but there's no signifigant coverage about him. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Producer of a very famous video. People are notable for the things they do. Very few people's private life is notable--its their accomplishments. The only people whose personal life is actually written about in a subtsantial way are performers and sports figures and those few thousand people in the world people who are actually famous .That would give a ridiculously abridged encyclopedia. Producers are notable because of the shows they produce, just as authors for what they write, and businessmen for the businesses.   DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as above; no doubt there's an interesting career, but I don't see any significant coverage about the person as an individual; notability isn't inherited from one's works. Neutralitytalk 07:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * if notability isn't derived from a person's work, what is it derived from? The minutia of his daily life?  DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Neutralitytalk 06:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per User:DGG. --131.123.123.124 (talk) 16:12, 21 November 2011 (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.