Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Kade (3rd nomination)

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. Enough reliable sources have made this notable. (X! · talk) · @956 · 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Kade

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

Arthur Kade still does not meet notability criteria. Kade is said to be an actor, yet has had no acting roles of note. Despite the occasional reference to Kade in the media, none of these references describe what he is notable for, other than notoriety deriving from his blog. The first deletion discussion also failed to find evidence for inherent notability. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I agree. This is just getting out of hand. Addionne (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it with fire per above; deleted at least twice and still doesn't make the cut. Also throw some salt on. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above (GregJackP (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Supreme delete the individual is plainly not notable. Add some WP:SALT. JBsupreme (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The subject meets the notability criteria by being the subject of multiple instances of coverage in reliable and notable media outlets (Danny Bonaduce, Philadelphia Inquirer, and the feature article in Philadelphia Magazine). As much as I hate it... - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Sources in the article show the man meets the WP:GNG. Whether or not we like the man is irrelevant to whether or not the man is notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are ample sources indicating it meets the general guidelins for notability. RFerreira (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage from Philadelphia (magazine), Philadelphia Enquirer, WPSG and the multiple pieces in Gawker are all significant. The nom's "other than notoriety deriving from his blog" borders on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. People can be notable because of a blog or anything else. I don't like this person either, but he passes WP:GNG whether we like him or not. --Oakshade (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. WP:NOT#NEWS. That someone got himself mentioned in the daily "Hey, isn't that wacky" story a few times in a few publications doesn't rise to WP:N when he doesn't meet the entertainer criteria he strives for. See also WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE; Wikipedia aspires to be more than a catalog of every newspaper story. THF (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Philadelphia Magazine doing a feature article on him is not "NOT#NEWS". The dude now even has a bit on Da Ali G Show, here. It is possible for a person to become notable because they don't shut up, precisely if people start giving him more and more attention. That's the point of notability -- significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Wikipedia aspires to be more than a catalog of every hey-isn't-that-wacky magazine story. That's why we have WP:EFFECT. The Philadelphia Magazine story is entirely about how he is not notable. THF (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's getting this coverage, not because he was already notable, but because of the [laughable] means he's going about trying to become famous -- and the magazine article's discussion of his fame or lack thereof should not be confused with Wikipedia's notability. If there hadn't been any coverage of him, then he'd just be another individual trying to become famous. He's gotten noticeable coverage, which meets Wikipedia's standards, and he most certainly has had an effect online. I agree that this is a threshold case, but regardless of what you think it means for Wikipedia to 'aspire' (and I like how you changed "every newspaper story" to "every magazine story" -- very clever), Wikipedia's standards, even applied intelligently here, don't automatically exclude Kade. If anything, it should intensify the discussion about notability, and hopefully generate a more intuitive definition of notability that doesn't come off as prejudicial to those subjects affected by it. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ridiculous and annoying as he may be, his numerous mentions in reliable sources meet WP standards of notability. It's as simple as that. --CliffC (talk) 01:59, 25 February 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.