Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/King Kaufman


 * 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. SynergeticMaggot 00:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

King Kaufman
Subject's sole "claim to fame" is a sports column for Salon.com. This is a minor feature and merits at most a mention on the Salon page, with King Kaufman left as a redirect. The article was -ed and since attracted a lot of edits because Kaufman published a column about the article. NTK 14:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Kaufman's column is not a minor feature&mdash;it gets daily billing near the top of the page.  NTK makes his bias clear on the talk page:  Perhaps I am biased because his column bores me and I rarely even glance at it. Just because he is the sports columnist for Salon doesn't make him some sort of authority, Salon is not a sports magazine and the column seems to be a "cover-the-bases" afterthought.  Well, I'm also a Salon Premium subscriber, and Kaufman's column is the biggest single reason that I am.  It's ridiculous to say that a major columnist at a major online magazine is non-notable, and the article is in pretty good shape after only a short period of work.  --Coneslayer 15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Note also Patrick Smith (columnist), who only has a weekly column. (No, this is not an invitation to afd that, too.) -- Coneslayer 15:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable.  Isoxyl 15:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Salon.com is a highly notable website, putting its significant contributors on the radar.  Being the only sports columnist is more significant than if it had a staff of part-timers.  For Salon.com subscribers, he is their only Salon.com voice in sports.  He may not have any claim to fame outside of this, but this is definitely a claim to fame. "Sports" is definitely NOT a minor feature. - CobaltBlueTony 15:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete —  and merge relevant content to Salon.com. Maybe Salon.com is notable - maybe Kaufman's column itself is notable, but I feel that he in himself is not notable to merit a whole article.  I'm pretty sure that there isn't a page for every sports columnist on every online news site on wikipedia, and there's nothing different here.   M  a  rtinp23  15:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Major columnist on a major website. Seems to meet WP:BIO Wildthing61476 15:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable enough. NawlinWiki 15:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Major sports columnist, major website = notable. Baseball,Baby!   balls  •  strikes  22:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep one of the primary columnists on one of the primary web journals. --Jajasoon 03:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Coneslayer, Isoxyl, CobaltBlueTony, Wildthing61476, NawlinWiki, BaseballBaby, and Jajasoon. --HResearcher 04:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Major writer for major news outlet. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 15:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Kaufman is fairly well-known and widely read in sports circles. I've seen him referenced dozens of times by other sports writers. --BukkWylde 18:37, 18 August 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.