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, no independent reliable sources discussing subject. Tim Vickers 21:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Dom Passantino[edit]

)

Wikipedia:Notability is about the availability of reliable source material for the article. It is not about importance or fame such as may be gained through being a published author. The individual Dom Passantino has not received enough coverage in reliable sources that are independent of Dom Passantino himself or those for whom he works to develop an attributable article on the topic. The topic does not meet general notability guidelines and no one has brought forth sufficient reliable sources since AfD#1 and AfD#2 to get this topic to meet the general notability guidelines. Since the topic does not meet the general notability guidelines, the article can never become an attributable article. Thus, the article should be deleted. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:23, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No attributable, reliable sources, WP:N. Not an influential music journalist, either. Wrote a small handful of reviews for the Guardian (4 or 5 that I can see).--Sethacus 15:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree profoundly. This guy broke Mondeo Pop, you ingrate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mondeo Popsicle (talk • contribs) 22:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC) — Mondeo Popsicle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Keep I can't help but notice that both previous calls for deletion for this article were by trolls, and I have little reason to doubt that Jreferee is anything other than one. MatthewPerpetua
- I have replied on this user's talk page, regarding the need to actually address the deletion nomination and to admonish him for a groundless accusation of sock-puppetry. --Dweller 10:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Strong nomination, but I hold by the sentiment I placed in AFD1. Per WP:BIO (Creative professionals) I think the range of reputable journals he's written for meets "independent periodical articles or reviews", but you've certainly convinced me down from my "Strong keep" in that AfD. I'm still open to persuasion and will keep an eye on this AfD. --Dweller 15:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

General notability guideline indicates that reliable source material be independent of the subject. The journal's he has written for are not independent of Passantino with regard to the material he contributed to those journals. Also, what material from his writings would you use in his biography? A Wikipedia article is not an award for "independent periodical articles or reviews" and it really does not make sense to use self-written biographical material that no one but the writer or those connected with him cared to publish. -- Jreferee t/c 21:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Jonathan Williams 17:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.174.96.138 (talk)
Delete per nom, nn person bio with a minor work product. Carlossuarez46 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: two keep votes that are purely votes (not !votes) and two keep commentor have decided to use this forum for personal attacks, you can decide whether to credit such votes and behaviors. But this is unfair to the nominator. Carlossuarez46 22:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not in the least notable or influential in his field. The entry smacks of vanity publishing more than anything. 77.97.163.220 23:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)77.97.163.220[reply]
Delete Appears to be non-notable in his field. Mbisanz 16:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The individual may well be notable - I have no way of knowing that without additional sources to establish that Notability. As this is the third AFD without improvement, it's not unreasonable to assume that no further sources exist or are forthcoming. No prejudice against a properly sourced article in the future. Best, ZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:09, 27 September 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.