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 speedy keep. Per SNOW and common sense. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Diaz[edit]

Tom Diaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable gun control advocate, fails WP:GNG, poorly sourced. IronKnuckle (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Senra (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article was formerly lacking in references but now has multiple sources from 1999 to 2013. Notable: widely considered an expert, subject of several media articles. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment And what would make him an expert? Expert on what per say? What policy based reason should this article be kept? I dont think because you think he is an "expert" cuts it. IronKnuckle (talk) 13:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's notable due to coverage in several media articles, as I said in the above comment. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are they reliable sources? IronKnuckle (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the sources provided on the article are more than enough to satisfy the general notability guidelines. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 15:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Looks notable enough to me.--Auric talk 15:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment How so? 16:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IronKnuckle (talk • contribs)

• Keep - This nominator, judging on their other nominations, has a poor grasp on the WP:GNG or WP:BEFORE. Keep per Colapeninsula's sources. Sergecross73 msg me 16:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sourcing improvements since nomination. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Has articles in Dallas News, The Los Angeles Times and CNN. Each article has several paragraphs directly relating to Diaz. Meets WP:GNG in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Keep. Meets GNG. Thanks to Ritchie for more sources. Ishdarian 16:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, but the sources were ones already in the article when I looked at it - I just took the three best ones to demonstrate notability. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:59, 22 January 2013 (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.