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. inclement weather (non-admin closure) _David^WS _(contribs) 20:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon_Pulsifer[edit]

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

the person is not notable. just an active contributor. But his name can't be included in an encyclopedia Karthika.kerala (talk)

• Keep, surprisingly. It does not matter if we think he deserves the fame, but he did receive significant in-depth and detailed coverage in conventional newsmedia. Passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 02:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as passing WP:N and WP:BIO - it's a little bit creepy, but he has been the subject of in-depth coverage in reliable, third party sources, notably Time Magazine and smaller mentions in USA Today and... urm... the Ottawa Citizen. – Toon^(talk) 02:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- I'm not sure if "notability isn't voluntary" is in the guidelines, but it probably should be. And he's notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passed WP:RS and WP:BIO. Yeah, he is notable. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. Barely notable, but meets criteria. Majoreditor (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No new reason has been presented for why the subject is not notable, in spite of two previous AFDs. The sources on the person indicate that he does pass WP:BIO and WP:N. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - within wikipedia, he's just another one of us, but he has extensive media coverage. He easily passes the notability standard. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Whether or not he is famous or important has nothing to do with the fact that he has been noted in many RS, thus notable, and meet Core content policies DoubleBlue (talk) 16:53, 27 November 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.