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) 12:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• WITHDRAW nomination in light of new refs. Indeed notable as a criminal. Very sad. Hairhorn (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable autobiography, dubious entry. This started out with a great deal of puffery and unsourced claims, such as being an uncredited writer on Rain Man, winning the O. Henry and Faulkner awards, and so on. Many of these claims are easily debunked online, and have since been blanked by myself and other editors. I was originally adding {citation needed} tags instead of blanking, but this story from the March 31, 2011 Santa Barbara Independent about Steven Kunes puts any unsourced claims in an extremely poor light. What's left is not enough to make him notable. Hairhorn (talk) 01:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as he is a notable rogue, con artist, liar and screen writer. He will get out of jail one day, and if he tries to make other wild claims, people can look him up on Wikipedia. I will put this article on my watch list to be sure that Kunes doesn't edit it into a pack of lies, and I encourage other editors to do the same. Cullen328 (talk) 01:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I figured that someone might try the line that "he's notable as a criminal". I have some sympathy for this view, but as far as I can tell, the sources are just not there. "Non-notable screenwriter + non-notable criminal" doesn't really add up to something notable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, veracity is highly suspect, and this appears to be nearly impossible to verify with authority. If he gets caught up in a big crime that gets media attention, he can be restores, so to speak. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, This article is a waste of everyone's time, this person is not notable and as such does not meet wikipedia's guidelines to warrant a page. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.108.195.157 (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — 98.108.195.157 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Delete Sources don't show notability. Even as a con man he seems to be small fry. --Crusio (talk) 02:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 02:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - How much of a reliable source is the Santa Barbara Independent? It appears to be more like examiner.com than like a local alternative weekly, and they admit themselves that Kunes wrote for them. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia. This person has also stire dup quite alot of edits from users here on Wikipedia. Which shows to me that there is a interest for the person.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Orange Mike. The Santa Barabara Independent has professional editorial control, and an audited print circulation of 40,000. See here [1] for more information about that paper. The author of the story is on the paid editorial staff of the newspaper. As for Kunes being non-notable, he triggered a notable scandal covered by the New York Times [2] and many other newspapers [3], [4] and magazines [5] back in 1982, when he fabricated an interview with the reclusive J. D. Salinger, who then sued him. I remember reading about that case nearly 30 years ago. Cullen328 (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment That NYT link gets me to a pay-wall barrier. However, I found this. I'm not sure whether this amounts to much notability beyond BLP1E. The Salinger episode certainly got attention, but it is only one event. Swindling a friend out of 2000 bucks, however reprehensible, is nothing out of the ordinary. Neither is claiming to be a famous writer and having written Rain Man. --Crusio (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More The incident has been described in a biography of Salinger here [6]. The Santa Barbara Independent story makes it clear that Kunes is far more than a case of BLP1E. If you search using the Google News tool, you may get past the pay wall and be able to read the entire lengthy New York Times story. Cullen328 (talk) 15:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the Salinger scam incident tips the balance clearly on the side of retaining this. The guy was trying to scam us like he did everybody else. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Changing to Keep, per Orangemike and Cullen328. --Crusio (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I was tempted to AFD this myself (and I'm no deletionist). But the Salinger incident is clearly notable. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2011 (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.