Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lars Pearson


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Lars Pearson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable person. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Without inline citations to reliable sources, there is little point to this article. Even rescue squadron members may find some articles not notable and not documented. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not a BLP expert so I cannot realistically provide a keep or delete vote here. IMHO, the list of publications looks impressive. However, as always in similar cases, my main concern is that the inexperienced editor (in this case ) is being aggressively treated (PRODs and AfD's are aggressive to the inexperienced) without any encouragement to improve the article according to policy. Delete votes similar to the above (without any attempt to be constructive and actually, erm, edit the article are not helpful here in my view. If we continue at this rate, there will be no one to edit wikipedia any more. Please be more sympathetic to the new editors and help them to improve articles --Senra (Talk) 22:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * He is quoted in one interview about a series he worked on. Going to keep searching. Is any of his work notable?   D r e a m Focus  03:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Lars Pearson is notable in the Doctor Who and Buffy fan communities. He's a frequent guest at many conventions (Dragon*Con, Gallifrey One, Chicago TARDIS, and TimeGate). comment added by Caitlinpapa (talk • contribs) 19:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * keep on the basis that there are currently eighteen links to Lars Pearson from wikipedia article-space --Senra (Talk) 20:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.    Snotty Wong   spill the beans 00:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - as an established author worthy of notice. I've found a few references and added them to the article. -   Hydroxonium (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who  -- Hydroxonium 05:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hydroxonium's sourcing effort seems to have done the trick here. Meets WP:BIO per the level of coverage. Alzarian16 (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. One of Hydroxonium's references is a wikipedia reprint.  One is a reprint of a press release.  Five are fan web sites.  There seems no reason to believe that any of these are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" appropriate for a living person biography - or that they constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 08:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - seems to have sufficiently proficient and productive in terms of output to qualify as a notable writer and publisher. However not yet convinced that the sources prove this. From the looks of it, even with sourcing the article will be stubby.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Have to agree that the none of the references are really great, although the interview with Juice Magazine seems pretty good. But I must admit I've never heard of Juice magazine or Lars Pearson for that matter. I'll keep looking to see what I can find to give this article a fair shake. Thanks. -   Hydroxonium (talk) 12:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Update - This is my mistake for rushing through this. Juice Magazine is part of The Des Moines Register, which is one of Iowa's larger newspapers. The Juice web site is actually part of the Des Moines Register's domain (dmjuice.desmoinesregister.com). I would think they are suffciently reliable, but I will still keep checking for other stuff. -   Hydroxonium (talk) 12:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: dmjuice is in the Des Moines Register's domain, but it's a blogging resource, just like blogspot.  Anybody can get a blog there.  Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is my mistake again. I apologize to my fellow Wikipedians for not being more verbose. Juice is a tabloid put out by the Des Moines Register, which is where the interview was printed. Joe Lawler is a staff reporter and music critic for the Des Moines Register and also writes for Juice. He was the reporter who wrote the article about Lars Pearson. I should have stated that more clearly. Hope that clears up the confusion. -   Hydroxonium (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Extra verbose-ness - And Eric Rowley is the Assistant Photo Editor at the Des Moines Register and he is the the photographer that took the picture of Lars Pearson for the article. Just in case somebody was wondering. -   Hydroxonium (talk) 06:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per excellent improvements by editor Hydroxonium. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The references add up to a whole lot of nothing, they are either self-published or not from RS. The couple that are RS aren't actually about Pearson, in the best of them, he gets a single trivial mention. The fact that he has written quite a few books is irrelevent, it's not what you write, it's what people write about you that we are concerned with. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've updated this article for those who are interested and included a reference to an interview with U.S. News & World Report. Please note the interview is not "about him" it is "with him", regarding his expertise on collectables. -   Hydroxonium (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2010 (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.