Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Kolowich
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Wizardman 03:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mark Kolowich
He got his name in the papers for a semi-licit business. But there's no evidence of an encyclopedia article to be written here that isn't just a news aggregate of a single media cycle (if that). Docg 21:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete lack of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete not notable Dreamspy (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. There are news articles spread over several years in the Google News Archive. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- We are not a news aggregator, so can you please detail the special or ongoing significance that makes this encyclopedic, just pointing to a lot of news reports doesn't make your case.--Docg 21:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Notability guidelines don't talk about "special or ongoing significance", but they do talk about multiple independent references in reliable sources, which I have demonstrated to exist for this subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Notability is not arithmetic. The significance of sources needs to be assessed. Counting won't do. Arithmetical arguments are unlikely to convince many people.--Docg 08:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. Notability guidelines don't talk about "special or ongoing significance", but they do talk about multiple independent references in reliable sources, which I have demonstrated to exist for this subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- We are not a news aggregator, so can you please detail the special or ongoing significance that makes this encyclopedic, just pointing to a lot of news reports doesn't make your case.--Docg 21:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable and needs different sources.--RyRy5 talk 01:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability is not a good argument for deletion; the article meets WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. I don't see any BLP problems, though the article needs expansion so it can be a fuller biography. *** Crotalus *** 13:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
-
- WP:NOTNEWS. Do you want a bio on every fellon who gets reported in the papers.--Docg 14:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- Keep per Phil Bridger, being featured on the cover of the The Wall Street Journal seals the deal for me. (jarbarf) (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Cover the event, if notable and I doubt this one is, not the person notable only for that one event. - Nabla (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. One sentence does not an article make. Article is orphaned (and usually, an article is orphaned for a reason). Also: while a fellow editor cites WP:NOTNEWS (an essay), I find WP:NOT#NEWS (a section of policy) more appropriate. B.Wind (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Despite claims otherwise, there does not appear to be a sourcing problem, nor any compelling reason presented to delete. (This person is not a "ONEEVENT" candidate, BTW) - Ironic goat (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, completely unsourced. -- Naerii 23:43, 2 April 2008 (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.
