Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Sutton


 * 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. WP:SNOW  MBisanz  talk 08:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Marvin Sutton

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Questionable notability. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, marginal notability fails WP:FAILN. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The nominator explicitly rejects the validity of the general notability guideline, so this shorthand, which I use exceedingly sparingly, applies.
 * The subject of this article has received news coverage in dozens if not hundreds of articles. Specifically, he has received treatment in full-length articles focused solely on him by the Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal (two references that were cited in the stub article upon creation ). Bongo  matic  23:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Notability weakly established by coverage in reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep since the notability here is not weak, and certainly not marginal or questionable. Searches on Google News for "Marvin Sutton" and "Marvin Popcorn Sutton" produce enough significant results from reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Given how well known he was and how many times he'd been interviewed by various media, I see no question that he's notable enough for a Wikipedia entry.--VaGuy1973 (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Enough significance in reliable sources to establish notability. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per Drmies.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  17:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep An article in the NYT is sufficient for notability.  That source, and the WSJ, were both present from the very start of the nomination. DGG (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG - The New York Times, AP, Wall Street Journal, are all great cites. Bearian (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - referenced and notable from the very start of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2009 (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.