Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Robert Heft

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Robert Heft

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

Notability not established. Eeekster (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Taggers were absolutely correct that notability was not asserted in the first version by the original author. However, per WP:BEFORE a quick search for that exact name turns up multiple non-trivial reliable sources that have covered, discussed, or interviewed the subject. I know only what I've read in the last 20 min, but he appears to satisfy WP:BIO easily. I've started to cleanup a bit but need to signoff for a while - but here are just a few of the sources from page one of a google search on his name: [1], [2], [3], [4]. 7 04:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - We'll, it's been a week and I'm unable to find much more on him. Plus, now someone whose username matches the subject of the article has started editing and adding in links to his site. Wouldn't mind a re-listing for a wider look than just my weak keep. 7 12:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he seems to meet the minimal notability guideline, barely. There are multiple reliable sources that discuss him. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs work, as the version I just read does not assert notability. However, a gSearch yielded an ABC news story here [5], and a gNews search shows coverage in the Toronto Star, CBC, and the BBC, to name a few [6]. Vulture19 (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looking at all the links provided above, only [7] and [8] might constitute significant coverage per WP:N (the rest are just short quotations). The first one is a lengthy interview with Heft, but the subject is a news event, and the information covered about Heft himself is tangential and not significant. The second link appears to be a detailed personal profile that would normally satisfy the notability requirements, but it is also a reaction to the same news event. This single instance of significant coverage about the subject in a reliable source is really a human interest story that does not, in my opinion, establish general notability.--Michael White^T·C 05:48, 7 December 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.