Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Potvin


 * 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 of the debate was keep. User:Usgnus is particularly persuasive here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Potvin
"For anyone steeped in old-media thinking, evidence that the on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia is an unreliable source can be found in a Vancouver publisher's entry about himself.

Kevin Potvin writes and publishes a weekly print tabloid called The Republic of East Vancouver, full of inflammatory opinion pieces reminiscent of the ideological rants of 18th-century pamphleteers. It claims a circulation of 6,000. Yet, according to Wikipedia, Mr. Potvin is a colossus.

The entry says that “some hail Potvin as the latest and best resource for fair investigative reporting and independent media campaigns for truth and accountability.” It also reports that his “work has appeared in Harper's and The Atlantic Monthly.”

Now for a fact check. According to Harper's magazine, Mr. Potvin had a letter to the editor printed once, in November of 1992. The Atlantic could find no record of Mr. Potvin — he says he wrote “a substantial letter to the editor” in 1987, but the magazine does not archive letters. " &mdash;The Globe and Mail, May 6, 2006

delete

lots of issues | leave me a message 19:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - not a reason for deletion in itself but citation may be needed to bolster the article as it stands in the light of these remarks. If Wikipedia deleted everything that somebody somewhere didn't like, there wouldn't be a whole lot left. Ac@osr 20:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. A non-verified vanity piece that has become a black-eye for wikipedia in the mainstream press.  Bucketsofg✐ 20:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I've voted keep (below), simply because this person writes regularly for a publication with a print run of 6000 or whatever, it is embarrassing to Wikipedia that the article referred to his "work" as having appeared in certain high-profile magazines. As someone who has done a fair bit of professional writing, editing, blah blah, myself, I would definitely interpret that as referring to paid articles, not contributions to letters columns. There is a huge difference, even if one or both of these letters were rather long. If this article survives AfD I hope it is kept accurate in future. Metamagician3000 14:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. In general, letters to the editor should not even be mentioned in encyclopaedic articles. &mdash; Usgnus 14:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * weak keep. Stronger keep per Usgnus. starting an article about yourself (to help your city council bid) is lame, but if everything in it is referenced, it should be fine. heqs 13:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per WP:BLP. I can't really see what in this makes him notable. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Regardless of the G&M article, he is not notable. -Abscissa 17:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep He is notable, according to Wikipedia's notability standards, because he is the editor of a newspaper with a circulation of 12,000 and he is a regular writer for a newspaper (Vancouver Courier) with a circulation of 265,000. Usgnus 18:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't want the article deleted just because of the Globe article. There are plenty questionable articles out there, and often we try to improve them instead of simply deleting them. Kevin Potvin is fairly well known here in Vancouver. BTW, here is the notability standard I am using: "Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more" &mdash; Usgnus 03:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot figure out how to edit a wikipedia entry or how to add this reference to the entry, and maybe someone will help me with that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.80.169.92 (talk • contribs).
 * Delete - unless better evidence of notability can be shown.   David Oberst 01:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - non notable columnist. -- No Guru 05:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ardenn  23:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable. musti 00:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:BIO - pm_shef 02:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Usgnus and cleanup. Metamagician3000 15:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I am Kevin Potvin. The Globe and Mail article implies I fabricated a substantial letter to The Atlantic, so I scanned and posted it here http://www.republic-news.org/images/atlantic.gif
 * Uhh, mate, that's still just a letter to the editor. It is hardly sufficient as evidence that your "work has appeared in Harper's", etc. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:08, 14 May 2006 (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.