Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Jalopy

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. Ged UK 12:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Jalopy

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

This article contains no useful information and is about a complete non-entity. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 10:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: That the nom doesn't think the subject ought to be important, or that the article is a stub, are not valid deletion grounds. Would the nom care to come up with a deletion ground that is valid? Granted, I can't imagine one myself that would counteract the subject passing the GNG by way of full length interviews of himself on NPR and in the New York Times. (The nom is likewise in error; I don't see a 1st AFD here.) Ravenswing 17:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He appears to have received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I added a little information and one additional reference to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 04:5 i17 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep There are many descriptions of his works in reliable sources. Nightline filmed a segment in his workshop broadcast April, 2009. Cullen328 (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note: two nominations were created, I copied content and redirected Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mister Jalopy (2nd nomination) here. tedder (talk) 06:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not extensive coverage to meet WP:BIO. [1]. LibStar (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Doesn't matter; it does meet the GNG, which trumps WP:BIO. Ravenswing 11:10, 19 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) 02:54, 19 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.