Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Wann


 * 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. (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 06:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Keith Wann

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

BLP with only primary sources. I dream of horses (T) @ 16:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete These references are just primary sources of course and primary sources are not enough to meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines.WisconsinBoyClevelandRocks228844 (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wisconsin -- you are of course correct that primary sources are not sufficient. But have you looked at the non-primary sources? We have to look beyond the article, for what sources exist, in !voting at AfD. As wp:AFD states:  "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."--Epeefleche (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 00:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep I'm finding quite a bit of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. GNG-satisfying sources exist.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I added a couple of newspaper references to the article yesterday. However looking at these again, as well as those in the link provided by Candleabracadabra above, I do not feel that there is sufficient rising above routine listings to the point of demonstrable notability. AllyD (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Have you taken a look at the many newspaper references here?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the items in the Google link are a mix of PR items and event announcements - they fall short of being substantial coverage. I had gone back the article today intending to clean it up (as the text has the tone of a performer's press-pack); that was when my view became that it was insufficient for WP:ENTERTAINER. AllyD (talk) 07:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * While those are certainly there, aren't you also seeing articles such as this NY Times article and this article?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes but - as is also true of the two articles I referenced into the article itself - the subject gets mentioned in the context of a wider article (often prefixed "a" rather than "the"), rather than being the subject of the article himself. There could be an argument that an accumulation of passing mentions adds up, but I think that needs to be as support for at least one piece which plainly does demonstrate notability through full focus on the subject. AllyD (talk) 07:36, 8 September 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.