Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Zumbo


 * 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   Speedy Close. Per AN/I discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=534361536#Proposal_2 Monty  845  18:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Jim Zumbo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non notable person, fails WP:GNG IronKnuckle (talk) 12:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Senra (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The present article's a mess. His notability would lie in his TV series and 20+ books, not in a controversy where he annoyed a few people who like hunting with assault rifles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree the article is a mess. Which is why it should not be on wikipedia. IronKnuckle (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. "It's a mess" is not a valid rationale to delete. Please read WP:RUBBISH. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You have your right to your opinion, and I have the right to disagree. I gave my reasons in the nomination. IronKnuckle (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You did, but unfortunately your reasoning is rather brief and amounts to little more than "It's not notable". Can you clarify a little about your assertion of lack of notability, including a set of news and book searches you tried? What is your opinion on this source about Zumbo? Or this? Or this, this, this this or this? Keep Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   16:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


 * keep major publications and telivision shows publishing his work. Major publications commenting on him, especially the NYTimes with the "Overkill article. clearly passes WP:GNG Gaijin42 (talk) 17:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The references in the article show enough notability to easily meet WP:GNG. - SudoGhost 18:36, 22 January 2013 (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.