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. The article cites no sources independent of the subject that establish notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Vallance (writer)[edit]

Questionable notability, no directly referenced sources. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note discussion is red-linked from article, attempting to fix with this cmt. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 02:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Notability not even asserted, much less demonstrated. Qworty (talk) 10:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Identifying the subject of the article as a regular writer/columnist/reviewer for at least two major publications, as well as the author of two books in his journalistic area, is certainly an assertion of notability. While Vallance apparently did his most substantial work in the preWeb area, even a rudimentary Google search turns up, for example, a description of him as an "expert" in his field from reliable sources, eg [1]. The Enchantress Of Florence (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fulfills notability criteria. Shovon (talk) 19:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for The Enchantress Of Florence's reasons. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Since this discussion was never linked properly from the article I have relisted it for discussion. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 02:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 02:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable secondary sources describing the subject can be found. The current article appears to only be based on editor synthesis from primary sources. Whatever his achievements if they can't be verified by citing independent sources it will not be possible to write a neutral, original research free article about the subject. Guest9999 (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find significant coverage on him. Every writer for a newspaper will have his name palstered throughout Google. But hits alone do not suffice for notability. There must be significant coverage of the article's subject, of which is lacking. Neither is being an "expert" considered notable for Wikipedia purposes. Every expert doesn't require an encyclopedia article written about him. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Woe betide those whose work hasn't been spidered by Gooogle! Anyway, Enchantress says it all. Article needs work, probably some very irritating and time-consuming work at a public library, but so do the vast majority our articles, or else we'd be Britannica. Ford MF (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 17:52, 15 June 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.