Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Victori

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. Shimeru (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Victori

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

After 417 Ghits, I am not convinced that this person is notable enough for inclusion. The COI on the article runs rampant, and I cannot seem to find enough reliable, third-party coverage of the subject to merit keeping this article. ArcAngel (talk) ) 15:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - COI and obvious promotion notwithstanding, coverage by reliable sources is minimal, thus subject does not pass the notability guidelines.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doggone it, WP:ILIKEIT, and the works of "multiplism" were very WP:INTERESTING, but I see no proof that this has established notability outside the local area (another cite would be [1]). Unfortunately, it's difficult to search for this individual's nom de plume, in that it is too similar to the title of the famous film Victor, Victoria. Mandsford (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more refs.[2](used in the article),[3], [4], [5]. Ty 20:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided Never was totally certain about his notability, but the sources provided satisfied me enough to watchlist the article (I may have been a bit distracted by the pretty pictures). Also, while I can't find copies online, this article reads, "The home has become a Rutherford landmark, [...] TV crews covered his unveiling events, and even Weird NJ magazine has focused on it." If a reliable source confirms the existence of reliable sources on a subject, but those confirmed reliable sources cannot be accessed, are those confirmed reliable sources invalidated? (Not rhetorical). I don't believe a subject has to be very widely known to be significant; state-wide sounds reasonable. liquidluck✽talk 03:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reliable source can be used for information in it, including that other sources have also covered the subject. 03:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion to date. There are enough sources for the subject. The article is in a decent state, but needs expansion from the sources, and at least there's no shortage of free images, for a change. Ty 03:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I don't think the references that have been found so far are quite enough to pass the notability guideline. The only significant coverage seems to be from two local sources. If more significant coverage can be found, I would change my mind to keep. Robofish (talk) 23:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As above, "The home has become a Rutherford landmark, [...] TV crews covered his unveiling events, and even Weird NJ magazine has focused on it." Ty 02:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 01:31, 12 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.