Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Chapman (Canadian) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 18:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Jim Chapman (Canadian)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Although this version of the article is almost identical at the body text level to the version that was previously deleted, WP:DELREV felt that the inclusion of added references merited a new discussion instead of a G4 speedy. That said, the references are still extremely weak and unreliable; a large number of them are to YouTube videos, band profiles on iTunes or other music stores, collections of private correspondence that's "available upon request", Wikinews articles, radio show guest lists, and other such inadmissible sources. Some are to newspaper articles, but even those fail to demonstrate his notability outside of the single midsized media market where he worked — and even DELREV acknowledged that while the volume of references looks more impressive this time, the actual quality of them was still very unlikely to pass muster against our inclusion guidelines and that the article probably should come to AFD again. I still don't see how it's anything but a delete. Bearcat (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The London Free Press coverage seems to be primarily about him (listed in the title of the article, not on-line). is national news coverage from ABC (though minor not trivial).  All told easily meets WP:N.  I don't think deleting a bio for only having local coverage is suggested or required by any guidelines or policies (though if I'm wrong I'd like to know).  In any case there is a bit of broader coverage.  I'm good. Hobit (talk) 21:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We quite regularly downplay local media coverage when evaluating the presence or absence of notability; if we didn't, we'd have to allow an article about every single person who ever got written about in their local community Pennysaver. Which is not to say that local media coverage is always invalid, but it counts for a lot less in the WP:GNG sweepstakes than non-local, national or international media coverage does. For one thing, as was noted in the original AFD discussion, his "bestselling" book can't be properly sourced as "bestselling" — several online bookstores, including ones which specialize in deep and obscure catalogue books let alone biggies like Amazon, don't list it at all. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, just about. I never liked articles with 40 references where 30 of them are non-independent, but there does appear to be a small number of substantial sources about the person, both at local (London Free Press) and national level (ABC). Probably meets WP:BASIC, which is just as well as he fails pretty much all of the additional criteria at WP:ENT. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:40, 27 June 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.