Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Prunty

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. (non-admin closure) MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 01:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Prunty

Ben Prunty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NMUSIC. Delete unless the referencing and notability claim can be appropriately beefed up. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the
list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is another one of those cases where I'm sure I'm about to bold "kill it with fire" and am just doing the searches to verify what I already know. But I was wrong. Prunty passes the GNG with flying colors with
    WP:VG/RS
    sources:
czar 
♔ 01:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
In light of those, I'm willing to withdraw this if some of those sources actually find their way into the article. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by Czar. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Czar above. I should remind Bearcat that the only requirement is that the sources exist, not that they be added to the article (though of course it would be nice):
    WP:N#Article content does not determine notability. — Gwalla | Talk 20:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
WP:BLPs are held to different standards than other articles. If he were an inanimate object or an organization, it would be sufficient for reliable sources to demonstrably exist whether they were actually in the article or not — but to support a BLP, at least one or two reliable sources have to actually be in the article as written or it still can't stick around. Bearcat (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
That's true but since the references have been shown to exist, I don't think there's anything to be gained by holding it hostage to a nomination when you can just add those references yourself and be done with it. — Gwalla | Talk 16:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources were in the article. Your stated concern was therefore notability.
WP:N#Article content does not determine notability applies. 78.19.26.160 (talk) 23:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Primary sources don't count for anything. A BLP has to have at least one
reliable source already in it as written, or it still isn't entitled to stick around regardless of what notability claims it does or doesn't make. Bearcat (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ben_Prunty&oldid=1161171885"