Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Oberzan

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. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 03:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Zachary Oberzan

Zachary Oberzan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

• Not quite sure if this meets WP:ARTIST or WP:NMG. bender235 (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• This article is receiving links from other people and pages. The information is accurate and timely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teasle1 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC) — Teasel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Really? Does it? --bender235 (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps in his newness, the editor meant the news coverage? [1] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 23:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep and allow continued expansion and sourcing of this mere weeks-old article. Any SNG we look at only allows a presumption that coverage exists. So encouraged by SNGs, we can instead look directly at available sourcing to find 7 years of ctitical commentary and coverage in multiple reliable sources for multiple events[2] and so deternmine that we have enough to allow a decent presumption of notability. And with such reasonable presumption, we can encourage this article by a new editor be further expanded and improved.... and I'd be glad to help out. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel somewhat uncomfortable keeping this WP:AUTO. --bender235 (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I can understand... even though such has its exceptions, it is discouraged. But heck, even an actual autobio can be kept if it is improvable though found sources and through an author's understanding the community's preference that he refrain from editing an article about himself. But might I ask why you feel that new editor User:Teasle1 might be be the subject of the article? Simply for choice of first article? Or a newb's lack of edits elsewhere? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Insufficient wp:GNG. Don't know why it is in academic section. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC).
  • I removed it from Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Academics and educators, as I agree that it's off-topic there. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Multiple reviews in the NYT and other newspapers for significant parts of his oeuvre constitute sufficient coverage under WP:CREATIVE. I do agree that the current biography is pretty spammy and unhelpful, but that's a job for cleanup. Ray^Talk 02:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Multiple awards, multiple references. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

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.