Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Micah Garen


 * 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. Secret account 19:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Micah Garen

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article was tagged as possible failing the notability requirement since 2010. I recently proposed deletion, based on WP:ONEEVENT. This proposal was rejected by the article's creator, on the grounds that he "still remembers the event", and that the event has historical importance. That is not my understanding of WP:ONEEVENT - the event may be notable, but that does not mean that a person whose only notability is his participation in the event is notable Brad Dyer (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  17:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable. Only a passing reference here and there. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Putting aside (for now) the question of whether he merits a decent article here, the article that he now has looked until a few minutes ago as if it was lazily "summarized" (i.e. copied and then clumsily abridged) from the page about Garen at fourcornersmedia.net. A quick look showed that this was the "handiwork" of a SPA grandly named "Glosserandparser". I've reverted the addition. (It had only been in the article since 2006.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Question. Is his contributor page for Granta an RS? It's quite informative. -- Hoary (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. No answer to the above question in almost a week. A contributor page is I think often largely the product of the contributor himself; but even if this was so here, Granta (a solid magazine), decided to republish it. And its content looks good. So I'll plump for "keep". -- Hoary (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 21:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete fails the one-event rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep while the AfD is understandable, given the former article, and I agree that the one-event of his kidnapping and release (which received huge international attention) is arguably the most important event in his journalistic career, there is much more to him which clearly meets the GNG, particularly he is a notable documentary filmmaker working in a dangerous region (the Middle East) who continues to produce notable work. This material was not in the article before, but now is (see 15 sources; over half of them are not about the kidnapping). He is an award-winning photographer; his documentary won a top award. And the kidnapping continues to have ramifications today, specifically touching on the rights of journalists (who often are ill-treated in wartime). His book about the ordeal won [plaudits from Kirkus. Clearly he is an influential documentary filmmaker who clearly meets the GNG even without the kidnapping stuff.--[[User:Tomwsulcer|Tomwsulcer]] (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2014 (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.