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. Peacent 06:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Dineen-Porter[edit]

David Dineen-Porter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Reason 64dom 00:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article fails to meet Wikipedia's notibility criteria for articles about people.

David Dineen-Porter is not the subject of published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Each of the sources cited in the article is either self-promotion, unpublished, or of trivial significance to the subject.

No other criteria from Wikipedia's notibility criteria are satisfactorily met.

One or two of the sources appear to be journalistic, others appear to be basically direct links to the things discussed, rather than third party synthesis. But i guess people are on wikipedia with a lot less. How do people decide anyway? Is there any third party synthesis on Rosie Perez? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.66.235 (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 20:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would point out that the Globe and Mail link does not actually go to an article, but rather to a summary of an article called "Musicians get wired with old gadgets." It is impossible to tell if Dineen-Porter is even mentioned in the article, or, if he is, if it is only a passing mention. Thus there is actually only one RS for this entire article--we simply have no way of verifying the rest of it. I think we should bear that in mind, especially given the fact that, as I mentioned, there is a "death date" listed for 2056. It's quite possible that other parts of this article are fabricated or exaggerated as well--we simply cannot know what is true and what is not in this thing. Odd and wildly unencyclopedic passages like "It may also explain why he sometimes exhibits paranoid behaviour or appears to inadequately predict how severely his actions will affect his fellow comedians" (which probably violates BLP rules) and "David claims to suffer from every minor physical malady known to mankind, including allergies, lactose intolerance, chronic backache, temporomandibular joint disorder, and so on, but it is difficult to substantiate these claims" make me distrust this entire article. I don't think we can afford to keep it unless it can be sourced properly and its many claims substantiated.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I agree that the article is in sad shape and needs some serious editting, perhaps even to a stub level clean it up, but it isn't grounds for deletion. As for having sufficient references, having one where the individual is the focus of the article (accessible), and others quoted, and possibly checkable through offline means makes it a keep for me. -- 24.114.255.99 18:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC) Whpq 18:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC) (that was me, somehow I got signed out between the time I started editting and saved teh edit)[reply]
Having an article about you in a small newspaper does not make you notable. Actually it doesn't even come close. And the fact is that this is the only reliable source in the article--it is not sufficient to establish notability. If someone checks the Globe and Mail article offline and finds it discusses this guy than it is a reliable source, but right now it is nothing--we have no idea what the article says and the fact that it might talk about the guy is meaningless. I am not arguing for deletion because the article is a mess (though it is) but because it is not based on reliable sources and does not establish notability. Wikipedia guidelines say that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There is no evidence that this is the case for Mr. Porter.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More