Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noel Alumit


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Noel Alumit

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Questionably notable and improvable as the best I instantly found was this, this, this and this and this would need meaningful and convincing improvement if kept. Pinging. SwisterTwister  talk  17:45, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  17:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  17:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  17:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  17:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  17:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: as non-notable. Unsourced claims, meagre Google hit results. Quis separabit?  22:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This article definitely needs major referencing improvement over where it stands right now, but some good references are available if you dig more deeply into the search results that SwisterTwister gave above. There's a full-page entry in Emmanuel S. Nelson's Encyclopedia of Contemporary LGBTQ Literature of the United States, for example — and it's long been a principle of Wikipedia that one good entry in an external encyclopedia can effectively count for as much toward GNG as ten lesser sources combined. But that isn't even all there is: there's also a full-page article in The Advocate about the publication of his novel Letters to Montgomery Clift. Plus he's been the winner of several notable literary awards (Stonewall Book Award, Violet Quill, Jim Duggins Award) — which helps the sourceability, because the names of those awards can be added to the search string to help distill the signal-to-noise ratio further. So the references, and the credible and WP:AUTHOR-passing claims of notability are there, and the article just needs to be revised to reflect that better. Keep; I'll personally look after sprucing it up. Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: I've substantially updated the sourcing, so that now instead of just one source it's sitting on eleven. There are one or two other details I still need to find a source for, but eleven distinct sources is absolutely more than sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep thanks to User:Bearcat's edits. LaMona (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - looks to be enough to pass WP:BIO, considering the points raised by and my own search. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 17:30, 2 November 2015 (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.