Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Zwerdling

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. Withdrawn by nominator. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Zwerdling

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

The individual has not been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectual independent of each other and independent of the subject. Tobias555 (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known reporter, winner of multiple awards, article has sources about them already. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no secondary sources which are reliable, intellectual independent of each other and independent of the subject. All I see is that the majority of the links provided in the article are primary sources, and several are non-RS. Tobias555 (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well-known indeed, and it's not obvious what is wrong with sources. Does Current (newspaper) for example have some secret connection to Zwerdling, or is the reasoning that no medium can be a non-primary source for a media figure? Sparafucil (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that current.org qualifies as a reliable source, where are the other "multiple published secondary sources"? Tobias555 (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as easily crossing the verifiability and notability thresholds. It's sure tough to sift coverage of Zwerdling (like [1], [2], [3]) from the bazillion stories he's filed in more than 20 years of award-winning national journalism but it's clear that the sources exist which is sufficient to prove notability for our purposes. - Dravecky (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I find it off that this nomination was made by a brand-new editor whose very first edit was an improper speedy deletion tag on the article in question then sending it to AfD. While I'm always glad to see new editors jump in with both feet, such single-purpose and familiarity with intricate Wikipedia functions (but not WP:BEFORE, it seems) is unusual. - Dravecky (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he just doesn't have a radio. I just learned there's a term ("lapsus clivis") for what happens when D and F keys are adjacent. You seem otherwise very on the game! Sparafucil (talk) 07:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While I'll have to remember lapsus clivis, I actually meant 'off' in the sense that things are 'a bit off' with this editor. I guess 'odd' would have worked there as well. - Dravecky (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me like somebody involved with Fort Carson who has a bone to pick with Zwerdling. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your comments. I am indeed an SPA, and there was no intention on my part to pretend otherwise. For reasons I cannot disclose, I chose to remain anonymous in this debate, however, as you can see I have nominated the article in good faith and in good faith would like to withdraw this nomination based on the comments made by Dravecky. The evidence that Dravecky has produced is sufficient to establish the notability of the subject. I regret the inconvenience that may have been caused to other Wikipedia editors in the course of this discussion. Thanks all. PS: I have nothing to do with Fort Carson. Tobias555 (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:VRS - same reason I declined the speedy tag. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:01, 12 February 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.