- 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. Tim Song (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stratton Rawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Film producer who does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY. I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. Although the station WNED-FM does meet notability guidelines, notability is not inherited. Claritas (talk) 17:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Do you consider Buffalo News an RS?[1] Or the book references here?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume that the Buffalo News is a local newspaper, and thus may not meet the WP:RS guidelines. He's mentioned in some publications, but hasn't recieved any significant coverage.Claritas (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yikes!! That is a rather incorrect "presumption" to share. Had you thought to first look at the Wikipedia artricle about that publication, you would have learned that the Buffalo News was founded in 1873 and that it is both the primary newspaper of the Buffalo – Niagara Falls metropolitan area, and the area's only daily newspaper. You would have learned that Buffalo News founded and formerly owned the WBEN television and radio stations, which are now WIVB (Channel 4), WBEN (930), WYRK (106.5) and WTSS (102.5), respectively. You would have learned that journalists from the Buffalo News have won three Pulitzer Prizes. And you would have learned that in 2009 Buffalo News was listed 52nd among the 100 top newspapers in the entire US by circulation... and that it has consistantly held that ranking for many years.[2] Nope. Not exactly a neighborhood gazette. The Buffalo News amply meets Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source. And if Rawson gets continued coverage in that honored publication for over 10 years... and other sources as well.. and is written of in multiple books....? Yup. He's notable... even if we may never have heard of him before this AFD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Schmidt has a good point. I would suggest to nom that he do a better job of following the requirements of wp:before. I note that he said he could not find significant coverage in reliable sources, but given the above -- which one can find with just a few clicks of a mouse -- I'm not sure how he is conducting his search.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yikes!! That is a rather incorrect "presumption" to share. Had you thought to first look at the Wikipedia artricle about that publication, you would have learned that the Buffalo News was founded in 1873 and that it is both the primary newspaper of the Buffalo – Niagara Falls metropolitan area, and the area's only daily newspaper. You would have learned that Buffalo News founded and formerly owned the WBEN television and radio stations, which are now WIVB (Channel 4), WBEN (930), WYRK (106.5) and WTSS (102.5), respectively. You would have learned that journalists from the Buffalo News have won three Pulitzer Prizes. And you would have learned that in 2009 Buffalo News was listed 52nd among the 100 top newspapers in the entire US by circulation... and that it has consistantly held that ranking for many years.[2] Nope. Not exactly a neighborhood gazette. The Buffalo News amply meets Wikipedia's criteria as a reliable source. And if Rawson gets continued coverage in that honored publication for over 10 years... and other sources as well.. and is written of in multiple books....? Yup. He's notable... even if we may never have heard of him before this AFD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I presume that the Buffalo News is a local newspaper, and thus may not meet the WP:RS guidelines. He's mentioned in some publications, but hasn't recieved any significant coverage.Claritas (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If not the nom, at least I myself recognize Buffalo News as WP:RS. Award-winning radio personality[3] and classical musician with coverage since at least 1990, with coverage in such as Los Angeles Times, along with American Record Guide and the numerous books, seems to indicate notability. The article has a few minor issues, but is well sourced and notability is shown. Time for cleanup, but not for deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Notability not established, and apparently cannot be. The cited NYT article does not mention him. After the end of that article, there is some extra junk that simply lists data of a few movies - that where his name appears. The Buffalo News external link leads to a page on which Rawson's name does not appear. As far as I can tell, he IS a person who works in film and broadcast media, but that in itself is not notable. ike9898 (talk) 13:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to look at the news and book links in the above "findsources". Sources toward notability do not have to at this very minute be IN the article for a reasonable presumption of notability to be made. That's why the "findsearches" link is offered above.... so editors can look toward potential and beyond an article's current condition. His notability is WELL established per available sources, and the article can easily be improved. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Schimdt.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Schimdt. Evalpor (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It's certainly not an obvious case, but the Buffalo News coverage pushes him over the notability fence from my point of view. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Fairly significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, so it passes WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:02, 21 May 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.