Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Cury (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 no consensus. The best part of five weeks hasn't got us to a consensus, and since the last relist this has had no further input. Michig (talk) 07:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Joe Cury
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable in any profession (businessman or political activist) and the previous 2006 nomination consensus was keep and merge to Dames Point Bridge (the merge never happened); I'd like a consensus whether this merge is still relevant. Searches at Highbeam, thefreelibrary and News found nothing except for Books ("Joe Cury Dames Point Bridge" shows same results) and Newspapers Archive but pretty much all of this is local newspapers and by the same author Dudley Clendinen who says a little too favorable things about him. SwisterTwister  talk  05:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I would vote to keep, because I remember not the man, but the group. The notability came from POWER. First, he captured a great acronym. Second, during the oil embargo and Carter years, he led a consumer revolt that got on the national news (when there really was a national news in the U.S.). I think his group got profiled on "60 Minutes." However, this is my personal memory, and I'm a very old creature. Hithladaeus (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I am not !voting to keep, because I can't verify. My memory is very good, but searching via the web for "POWER" is suicidal. Searching for "POWER + 60 Minutes" is nearly as bad (but I know the three amazing tricks that power companies don't want me to know and the forbidden device that will cut my power bill in half in 60 minutes or less, so there's that). People searching behind paid engines may have better luck. Hithladaeus (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Care to comment? SwisterTwister   talk  06:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete basically, NOT NEWS, and NOT MEMORIAL -- we have those policies to avoid the over-relianvce on the nGNG guideline; they over-ride it., and this is article is why. The argument above is that we should keep it for the group, not the person, in which case someone should attempt to write an article on POWER. (Tho I doubt it would be successful). And promotional for his ideas, to the extent that it would be a possible deletion on that ground alone  DGG ( talk ) 12:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable per Notability. Seems to have enough references and is certainly a figure that is well known in the area. WikipedianGator3 (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG - I don't know how a person can concede this person was notable locally, only, and not nationally, and yet still pass WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The subject received substantial coverage in a 5,589-word 1976 article by Joe Klein in Rolling Stone, which is not a local source. With this national source (supplemented by articles from the Associated Press and the St. Petersburg Times), it's clear that the subject is nationally notable and passes Notability. Cunard (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.  This 5,589-word article contains substantial coverage of the subject. It discusses his personal life, early career, later career, activism, and running for mayor.    </li> <li> </li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Joe Cury to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)</li></ul> <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Since new sources have been introduced, they should be considered in what otherwise looks to be a no consensus case. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 00:35, 28 June 2015 (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.