Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Dineen-Porter (2nd nomination)

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 No Consensus Default to Keep This one stills needs cleanup and better sourcing but non-notability not provenMike Cline (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Dineen-Porter

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

Biography of a living person with marginal notability. Subject has only been mentioned in one or two reliable sources; the others being blogs, and passing mentions at arbitrarily chosen websites. For the sake of protecting a BLP, and removing per notability concerns, I assert this article should be deleted. Blurpeace 20:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no reliable source for the discography. All of the links only mention subject in passing. Subject has not participated in anything verifiable besides a few appearances on a few television programs, winning a minor competition and obtaining a government grant. A few of the claims cannot be verified at alllittlemissmachiavelli 21:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littlemissmachiavelli (talk • contribs)

Keep, per these references in Eye Weekly: http://www.eyeweekly.com/blog/post/59585--the-daily-distraction-may-5 and http://www.eyeweekly.com/music/liveeye/article/73615 Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As previously mentioned, links only mention subject in passing. These articles only note that he also goes under the alias of PDF Format and does not contribute to strengthening notability. littlemissmachiavelli 21:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete Appears to be self-promotion, and the sources suggested above mention him only in passing. Murdoc van Horne (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have fixed all the formerly dead links by replacing them with their archived versions from http://www.archive.org Here is one of the formerly dead links: http://web.archive.org/web/20070927001051/http://www.eyeweekly.com/eye/issue/issue_08.26.04/arts/meet.php It's reasonably indepth. Blogs that are part of a newspaper's site written by journalists are just as reliable as dead-tree newspaper articles. And the other references are more than mentions in passing. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you refer to only make passing mentions at, on average, three sentences to one paragraph. The EyeWeekly source given is the only one that has done an in dept coverage of Porter. Blurpeace 04:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, the source appears to be from 2004. If he was notable, it should follow that he would have done other things that warranted a high level of coverage within the last six years. 136.159.72.2 (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to 136.159.72.2) Once notable, always notable. Notability is not temporary. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Folowing Eastmain's lead, I have begun cleanup and additional sourcing to the article as yes, it seemed overly promotional. And yes, I have cleaned up the improper ELs. He seems to have more coverage as a musician than as a filmmaker, comedian, or blogger. For instance, this 2009 article in Torontoist [1] is a very nice article about the fellow, and the official blog of New York Times technology reporter Jenna Wortham [2] in 2008 offers some more-than-trivial information about the man. More to do yes... but definitely do-able. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A good feeling about where this article is going. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. He just hasn't met the notability criteria yet, IMO. PK T(alk) 15:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 23:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sources used only mentions him in in passing and the article highly seem to be self-promotional. -RobertMel (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 05:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The test of significant coverage doesn't call for a web harvest to find anything at all that mentions a subject. The sources must be reliable. I see very few sources that would pass the test of reliability (I hardly think [Eye Weekly] crosses the reliability standard of "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy), and what's left is arguably not significant coverage. This is an important point and is not nit-picking. As a tertiary source, wikipedia essentially delegates its fact-checking and accuracy to secondary sources. We must therefore only use sources that are reliable, especially with BLPs. I don't see them here. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2010 (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.