Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimbo Matison

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 November 1.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Matison

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

I got one WP:RS between Gnews and regular Google search,not convinced he meets WP:GNG The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep one RS is pretty good for a quick search of google in a case like this. He was VP and founder of a notable cable television channel, and founded his own shows which still air, in which he acted. He has been the subject of quite a few articles which I've references - they may not be perfectly 'reliable sources' but they are not completely 'unreliable' either. Tduk (talk) 04:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment Could you also please wikilink your abbreviations so I have a better idea of what you're trying to say? I'd really appreciate it, thanks. Tduk (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tduk asked WP:ARS to take a look. I found a few sources to add (and added them) and although they are not earth-shattering, we are able to maintain a sourceable article on this person.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 gnews hit doesn't cut it for WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What? I tried looking at your other nominations, and you always seem to only reference "gnews hits", which I guess is Google News? Where in WP:BIO is this discussed? Tduk (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

read the basic criteria of WP:BIO. You need published secondary sources. Gnews helps you find those. LibStar (talk) 06:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

some of the stuff i added wasn't from gnews but was from a reliable source, like the TV week industry publication. the coverage is not extensive in those pieces though. but libstar tends to lean delete in a case like this and i tend to lean keep though even i admit this one is harder.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are people really suggesting using Google as the only indicator for whether something should be removed from wikipedia? That seems kind of dangerous. Tduk (talk) 19:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not dangerous at all, how else do you expect people to find third party sources? google news and google books are good ways. LibStar (talk) 12:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using Google News is fine for finding sources, but if someone has found good sources by another means, and included them in the article, as Milowent has been so kind to do, then wanting to delete the article simply because Google News does not return enough results for you empowers Google to have control over what gets deleted off of wikipedia. This doesn't seem dangerous to you? Tduk (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above, especially what LibStar said. --みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 23:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Libstar seems to have said the same thing as the nom - what do you mean exactly? Tduk (talk) 00:17, 30 October 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.