Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otto Divosta


 * 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. Juliancolton (talk) 20:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Otto Divosta

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Downgrading CSD to AFD. Doesn't seem notable enough to merit an article, so I figure I'll list it here for consensus since it was so politely contested. delete UtherSRG (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * comment I must ask what you mean by "doesn't seem notable enough." The burden of proof falls upon you as nominator to show why this does not meet guidelines. This subject meets the General Notability Guideline by virtue of having received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. riffic (talk) 07:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale. Aside from the opening "Otto Divosta was", it's not clear whether or not this person is alive so relisting just to be on the safe side. Furthermore, there are several mentions of otherwise non-notable living people in this article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Searching for "Otto DiVosta obituary" didn't return anything, and I would expect this person to have a published obituary. These days most American newspapers are online, ergo, I think he's alive. Hello, Mr. DiVosta, if you're reading. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 04:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - the references provide some evidence of notability; unfortunately I haven't checked the offline ones, but the first reference is good, and assuming the rest are what they sound like I'm willing to give this article the benefit of the doubt. It's a borderline case - I wouldn't particularly object to deletion, but I think this article probably passes our notability guidelines. Robofish (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As for Ron Ritzman's concern, I've just removed the last line of the article for BLP reasons, as it contained negative information about living people and seemed essentially unrelated to the rest of the article. Robofish (talk) 16:57, 30 May 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.