Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pier Dominguez


 * 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 18:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Pier Dominguez

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable. Si Trew (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Although there was coverage back in 2003, it was minor. The NY Times article of 7 September 2003 makes it clear that his first book was with a vanity press ("It was published in 2001 by the Writer's Club Press, a house that typically charges writers a fee to be published and sells the books per order.") - I found 2 Google News hits in April 1999 - one a copy of the other. The second book ("Christina Aguilera: A Star Is Made") was published by Collossus books, and cause a bit of press coverage in 2003, but all the press stories are basically from Jan-Sep 2003 (5 Google News hits - 2 of which are just the book name in a list of published books, 1 is the NYT piece mentioned above, 1 is the excerpt in the NY Post (as mentioned in the article), and the other is a review in the NY Post (but they had to review it if they were printing an excerpt). Since 2003? Nothing. Basically, this is a BLP1E article. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 23:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  —--  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me,  My Contribs ) 23:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Notability does not expire, and if the subject was notable in 2003, then he or she is notable now. The NYT article is not sufficient to prove notability, but mixed with this and one or two other sources, there is a case to be made for the article remaining. I am not sure that notability is met at this point, but I am willing to see if other sources can be provided - 22:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC) User:Mrathel (Talk)


 * Comment I am very vague on this, as I prefer to spend more of my time constructing articles than deleting them, but I was under the impression that it was deleted in 2003 for not being notable. It was essentially, as I understand it, regurgitated and I am inclined to suggest WP:PROMO but have no good evidence to prove it other than I chanced on it when splitting the disambig at Page 6 and Page Six, and I believe that Page Six is a column and magazine in the New York Post that, some may think, guarantees notoriety, which is not to say it guarantees notability. I might have a vague waft at WP:PROMO, but would not get far since it is wrestling treacle.
 * The point of notability still stands open, as far as I can tell, because it is for those who wish an article or section thereof to be kept to establish the grounds for it, not those who wish it to be deleted. And I am an inclusionist. I checked the histories before posting it here, and found no mention of notability. It is difficult to prove a negative, hence the burden of proof on proving notability, can you find where it was established before, please? Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Keep One of the references is a full-length profile in the New York Times. That qualifies, if barely, as "significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject." Other book reviews, etc., are just icing on the cake. That said, it was a local interest profile. Ray  Talk 19:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Two points I would like to make. Firstly, the coverage appears to be local coverage (even if it was in a sub-section of the NYT). Secondly, while it is true that "Notability does not expire", I do not think that the coverage would count as the subject being notable even back in 2003. Personally, I feel that if this author had done all their work in 2009 instead of in 2003, they would not be counted as notable with the evidence provided. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 21:46, 26 November 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.