Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Boone


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 14:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Kurt Boone

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Only two minor articles in Reliable Sources. To me they fall short of establishing notability. Ridernyc (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment – Please read WP:NRVE : Topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, and not whether or not sources are present in articles. See also WP:IMPERFECT. Northamerica1000(talk) 10:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 13:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 13:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 13:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep and close - Per WP:NRVE, ..."The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." This topic easily passes WP:GNG, and sources are readily available. Boone has received extensive coverage in numerous reliable sources, including: The New York Times, The New York Post , New York Daily News , New York Daily News , Courier Magazine , Metro New York . Northamerica1000(talk) 10:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Those were all in the article when I checked and I do not consider them extensive coverage. I'm also not sure how reliable a source the Courier Magazine is. Two fluff piece in NYC newspapers is not a slam dunk on the GNG in my eyes. Ridernyc (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Several of the newspaper articles are quite extensive. Also, my !vote above has five articles from New York Newspapers, not two, and four of them are comprised of significant coverage. Did you even read the above !vote or read the articles presented? Doesn't seem to be the case. Why is this? Northamerica1000(talk) 17:29, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In your opinion they are quite extensive, in my opinion they are metro section section fluff pieces and a few of them. Your continued total lack to assume good faith and make accusations about me is out of place here.  Stop attacking me and discuss the sources.Ridernyc (talk) 17:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I never state personal "attacks", not ever. Your comment stated that there were two articles in NYC newspapers in this discussion, which was in error. It wasn't an "accusation", it's an error. There are five NYC newspapers cited in my !vote above. Perhaps defining what you consider to be a "fluff piece" would help to clarify your stance. Per your comment above, how does an article being within a metro section of a newspaper reduce topic notability, (if that's what is being implied)? Also, what do you consider to be "extensive coverage"? Is this based on word count, number of paragraphs, etc.? I apologize if your were in any manner offended, because this wasn't the intention. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Northamerica1000(talk) 07:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - These four articles (cited above in my !vote) constitute  significant coverage  of the topic per WP:GNG, which defines significant coverage as: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Sources:
 * New York Daily News
 * The New York Times
 * The New York Post
 * New York Daily News
 * These are all extensive articles that are all entirely about Kurt Boone.
 * This article is shorter: Metro New York, but is entirely about Boone. Hope this helps to clarify matters. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - A summary of works authored by Kurt Boone:
 * "Looking For Myself" Poetry by Kurt Boone (1996) ISBN 0-8059-3570-3
 * "Inside Grand Central Terminal" A Photo Essay by Kurt Boone (2006) ISBN 978-0-9789946-0-0
 * "Urban Theory: Critical Thoughts In America" by Kurt Boone & Noreen Mallory (2007) ISBN 978-1-6048-1214-5
 * "On The Subway" Poetry by Kurt Boone (2008) ISBN 978-1-934690-00-0
 * "Messenger Poet" by Kurt Boone and illustration by Greg Ugalde (2009) ISBN 978-1-934690-23-9
 * "Asphalt Warrior: The Story of New York City's Fastest Messenger" by Kurt Boone (2011) ISBN 978-1-934690-29-1
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 07:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What do works by the author have to do with notability. And why is one of the New York Post articles listed by you as a work by the author? Agian assume good faith in others, people can look at sources and decide on their own without you dictating what is significant coverage in your opinion.  Ridernyc (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Per your comment above to " discuss the sources ", that's what's been done. Also, NY Post articles don't have ISBN numbers. Happy editing, Northamerica1000(talk) 23:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep I think the coverage in multiple newspapers is just about sufficient for WP:GNG, although I'm concerned that his books aren't really reviewed anywhere. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sources above are good enough for me, but would be best worked into the article. Local celebrities can still be notable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2012 (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.