Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erik Denmark

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. BASIC through demonstrated sources. NorthAmerica's rebuttal on available sources vs. in-article sources is correct (even though one might reasonably wish the policy were different.) j⚛e decker ^talk 15:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Denmark

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

To begin with, this guy is a minor competitive eater, with no clear claim to passing any notability rules. Beyond that, our sources just do not pass the general notability guidelines. One is his own website. The other is a maybe reliable source, I could not tell for sure, but it only makes passing mention to Denmark. Google news only revealed others sources that make similar passing mention to Denmark. We lack the indepth coverage generally required for articles John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not persuaded this article fails the GNG as there is significant coverage in local media: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. These are mostly interviews but each contains a decent paragraph of independent writing about him. Sadly we don't have guidelines on competitive eating in WP:NSPORT. BethNaught (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We need at least one regional source per WP:AUD.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That reference is from a guideline on organizations and companies, not individuals. In any event, I would think the Houston Chronicle (largest circulation daily in Texas) and The Seattle Times (largest circulation daily in Washington and winner of eight Pulitzer Prizes) qualify as regional sources. Cbl62 (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One reference from a non-authoritative source in which the subject took 14th at a competitive eating event. Not notable.--Rpclod (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability of reliable sources, rather than the state of sources within articles. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reliable source among the references. Plus the mere reference as an also-ran does not support notability even if the reference were a reliable source and, in fact, supports the adverse implication -- i.e., there is no "encyclopedic suitability of an article topic" as required by WP:BIO.--Rpclod (talk) 03:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have missed my point that topic notability is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles, per WP:NRVE, wherein it states, "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Also note that additional sources are presented by a user in the discussion above. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:BASIC upon review of sources listed above by User:BethNaught. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG.--180.172.239.231 (talk) 06:28, 11 August 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.