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. postdlf (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This looks largely like unsourced promotional rubbish. Jamesx12345 (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jamesx12345 - Which page did you nominate? I don't think PageName, deleted since 2009, was the intended target. Chris857 (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2013 (UTC) Bleh, I'm blind. Anyway, I have fixed this nom page. Chris857 (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I tried to clean up the promotional bits, removed uncited assertions, and tagged some of the career highlights as needing citations, but this man's long and fairly accomplished career appears to be quite notable based on substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Keep. I agree with Candleabracadabra. GNews shows a number of potential sources behind paywalls, including several LA Times features. --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:31, 14 July 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.