 | This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 June 28. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
- 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. Flowerparty☀ 02:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Arthur Kade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Doesn't meet WP:N gordonrox24 (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The references include a notable blog (Gawker.com), an in-depth audio interview by a very notable celebrity (Danny Bonaduce) that was broadcast live on a notable radio station (WYSP), and a feature article in a regionally significant and nationally recognized magazine (Philadelphia Magazine). How does that not meet WP:BIO? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - the Bonaduce interview seems to me to fall under WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kade was interviewed by Bonaduce in a non-trivial way, for at least a 1/2 hour. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So? How many people have been on Jerry Springer for a half-hour, without thus becoming notable? We're talking Bonaduce here, not Face the Nation. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Bonaduce interview alone obviously does not meet WP:BIO, but add in the Philadelphia Magazine feature, and multiple non-trivial posts in Gawker.com, and it technically does meet the criteria. We don't have to like the individual or what they're doing. But this guy's crossed a technical threshold I don't think we can just wish away. It meets the criteria, and I can't find where it doesn't. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So? How many people have been on Jerry Springer for a half-hour, without thus becoming notable? We're talking Bonaduce here, not Face the Nation. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kade was interviewed by Bonaduce in a non-trivial way, for at least a 1/2 hour. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - the Bonaduce interview seems to me to fall under WP:NOTCONTAGIOUS. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He's been deleted before, he's not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JorgeMacD (talk • contribs) 16:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional sources have been found. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The only in-depth non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources is purely local. He hasn't crossed the technical threshold into Wikipedia notability. Drawn Some (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Purely local"? Philadelphia Magazine is read in areas outside of Philly. Gawker.com is based in NYC. Digging further, Lemondrop.com isn't local. And this reaction from Jezebel.com isn't local. ... - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 18:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You consider Jezebel and Gawker reliable sources? Lulwut? Drawn Some (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly notable sources, as per their articles' existences, and evidence of some measure of his notability — though obviously not of his purported acting skillz or actual fame. Any idiot screaming loud enough atop Billy Penn, or in Central Park, to get written media attention that goes beyond a trivial news blurb and get discussed on notable blogs technically meets WP:BIO. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But do you or do you not consider Jezebel and Gawker reliable sources as discussed in WP:RS? Drawn Some (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And while you're at it, you consider the article "Arthur Kade, the Net's Biggest D-Bag" in the column "Happy Pill" on the website "Lemon Drop/sweet.tasty.tart" a reliable source as well? Drawn Some (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what? Never mind, I don't want to know the answer to my questions. Consider them rhetorical. I do not consider them reliable references for an encyclopedia article and your opinion won't alter mine. Drawn Some (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand this is borderline, but that the border has been crassoed. I believe "purely local" is not a criteria for exclusion (See Wikipedia:Local insterests#People, businesses, organizations), if those sources are reliable, the "locality" is significant enough (in this case, the greater Philadelphia metropolitan area), and the coverage is nontrivial. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not borderline at all. The significant in-depth coverage is not in independent reliable sources. Reliable sources are important or the idea of an encyclopedia as a reference becomes a joke. Wikipedia is no better than the sources we use and it should be better than Jezebel, Gawker, and Lemondrop. Drawn Some (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand this is borderline, but that the border has been crassoed. I believe "purely local" is not a criteria for exclusion (See Wikipedia:Local insterests#People, businesses, organizations), if those sources are reliable, the "locality" is significant enough (in this case, the greater Philadelphia metropolitan area), and the coverage is nontrivial. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what? Never mind, I don't want to know the answer to my questions. Consider them rhetorical. I do not consider them reliable references for an encyclopedia article and your opinion won't alter mine. Drawn Some (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly notable sources, as per their articles' existences, and evidence of some measure of his notability — though obviously not of his purported acting skillz or actual fame. Any idiot screaming loud enough atop Billy Penn, or in Central Park, to get written media attention that goes beyond a trivial news blurb and get discussed on notable blogs technically meets WP:BIO. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You consider Jezebel and Gawker reliable sources? Lulwut? Drawn Some (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Despite all the sources, this article has virtually nothing to say about the subject. Apparently he is an aspiring celebrity, but he doesn't seem to have achieved notability yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails the test of substantial coverage in impartial, reliable sources. Notable sources are not necessarily reliable sources; and his mentions in Gawker in particular seem to owe a lot to their attitude toward Philadelphia vs. NYC. He clearly wants to be notable; that doesn't make it so. The one solid mention in one solid magazine is simply not sufficient to pass the test. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP is not for self promotion, even if other media fall into the trap. DGG (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There's another version, here: Arthur Kade (actor) ... with slightly different sources? [1] ... guess it's still "local". - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep Gawker coverage and Philli mag coverage push up to meeting WP:BIO, although barely. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - It doesn't matter if the sources are local, as long as they are nationally recognized. By that reasoning, the Los Angeles Times would be a newspaper in the L.A. "local" area. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 26 June 2009 (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.