- 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 speedy keep. Bad-faith nomination. Drmies (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Bob Ricker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non notable deceased person who fails WP:GNG. Article lacks sources. IronKnuckle (talk) 12:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Senra (talk) 17:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep added 2 sources, more are available. Remember WP:NTEMP.--Auric talk 16:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Does he pass the WP:GNG? IronKnuckle (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If he's received significant coverage in multiple third-party sources (in this case, PBS, the New York Times and the Huffington Post), then yes, he meets the general guideline. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 16:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why were there so few sources? Notable articles should have ALOT of sources, do you agree? IronKnuckle (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "A lot" is subjective. Typically, 3-5 is enough to sway people to believe it meets the WP:GNG. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why were there so few sources? Notable articles should have ALOT of sources, do you agree? IronKnuckle (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If he's received significant coverage in multiple third-party sources (in this case, PBS, the New York Times and the Huffington Post), then yes, he meets the general guideline. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 16:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Does he pass the WP:GNG? IronKnuckle (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A lack of sources is not cause for deletion. If there is evidence to suggest that there are no sources to be found, that's different. Here, we have several reliable sources added to the article since its nomination, and those sources are sufficient to show some notability. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:25, 22 January 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.