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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asher Roth[edit]

Asher Roth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No assertion of real notability; contested PROD with no rationale given Dethme0w (talk) 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this is listed as the second attempt for nomination for deletion because the article was inadvertantly doubly nominated and the other nomination was closed and this one was allowed to remain. The multiplicity of nominations should therefor not affect the decision of editors in relation to their votes.

• Observation creator has removed the AfD tag and claimed in the edit summary to have addressed the central issue, but has not done anything but remove the tag. Twice now - apparently the creator is above policy. 206.116.63.240 (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Other wikipedia articles and blogs generally are not acceptable as sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question- I notice there's a review from the Kansas City Star linked as a reference. I can't verify from this computer, but could this be enough for notability? Umbralcorax (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: It's sort of gray -- I say that because, while he did make the paper, so did some guy who was shot by police yesterday in the Bronx for fleeing an arrest, and he doesn't get a Wikipedia article. Legitimate news stories definitely add (if not establish) someone's notability, but one source in one paper on one day is really just the beginning of the journey towards notability, rather than the destination. I added it because I found it, in hopes of perhaps finding more, or instilling in others the notion that sources like this should be sought, rather than blogs and -- haha -- other wikipedia articles. It's when people resort to that type of sourcing that red flags are raised and legitimate entites whose articles may be redrafted are deleted because a mockery had been made of the process. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as subject is described in several reliable third-party sources including the Houston Chronicle and the Kansas City Star. Article could use improvement and better sourcing but those are issues for cleanup, not AfD. - Dravecky (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment not my field, but the quote given seems to imply that he might become notable in the future, which is not usually considered quite enough. DGG (talk) 04:41, 19 August 2008 (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.