Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed Craven

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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 21:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Craven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article is more about the companies he founded which already have their own articles. His life doesn't appear to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Websites, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Yes the article needs to be rewritten but the subject still meets GNG ([1][2][3][4][5]). GMH Melbourne (talk) 07:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Given that it has been repeatedly confirmed at DRV sources presented during an afd should be ignored and this article should be purely judged on it's current state and should be deleted, unless of course the closing admin chooses to guess what a select few voters just might have possibly been thinking then they can choose to supervote based on their imagination. Don't bother making an effort. Your sources will be ignored. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Target of article is notable enough for inclusion. Sources per GMH Melb's comment above. Triplefour (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Duffbeerforme, I don't get your position at all. We always consider sources brought up in an AFD discussion, not just the current state of the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Agree that it meets notability standards. It is also of public interest and serves the public. I just found this article after seeking information on this individual. Knox490 (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree that Duffbeerforme's assertion (without evidence of any, let alone a pattern) seems at odds with
  WP:NEXIST (a long-standing part of our notability guideline). To wit, "The current state of the article does not determine notability...Multiple suitable sources that could be cited...Likely notable". But I cannot access most of GMH's links to decide how in-depth and independent of each other they are for this person himself. DMacks (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2024 (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.