Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul V. Kane

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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 02:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul V. Kane

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

Biography of a UN employee that appears to be self-promotion and fails to establish subject's notability. "Published works" list consists mostly of satellite radio interviews and op-ed letters. Name of author (User:Linkstarpr) suggests a PR firm, possibly Linkstar PR. Proposed deletion tag was removed by the author in April. Fishal (talk) 16:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Likely promotion by a PR firm on behalf of the subject. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unable to find significant coverage in independent sources on this man, which indicates the article doesn't meet the WP:GNG. Karanacs (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything about this person anywhere online, except for the single Op-ed he wrote. This one badly fails WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT Delete - According to WP:BLP, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced; that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see No original research); that relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see below); or that relies on sources that fail in some other way to comply with Verifiability." In this instance, the material is not 'contentious'.

While you might note that it is poorly sourced, the material is not contentious. There is no harm done in posting the articles he's had published in the NY Times and Financial Times. Since your research is so thorough in cause for deletion, how is it that you've come to the conclusion that Paul Kane is a "UN employee"? That is not true.

Furthermore, WP:BLP continues to say that "in less clear cases they should request the attention of an uninvolved administrator at Wikipedia:Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents." Let's take this to an unbiased administrator rather than having one of you doing a simple google search and deciding definitively that you 'can't find anything about this person anywhere online.' Very thorough indeed. User:Whattheworldiswatching —Preceding undated comment added 19:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC). — Whattheworldiswatching (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: The issue is not whether it is contentious, but whether information on the subject is verifiable by outside sources, and whether outside sources indicate that the subject is notable enough for an encyclapedia. Wikipedia:Verifiability, in particular the first two sections, sums up the guidelines for verifying info on a topic. If Mr. Kane is you or someone close to you, Wikipedia:Autobiography gives guidelines for how to proceed. The fact that the article is poorly sourced is not trivial: especially for subjects not widely known, sourcing is everything. How else can readers be sure that the whole page isn't made up? Without reliable sources, there is simply no way the article is verifiable. Fishal (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am not Paul Kane. I know the person who he saved on the metro however. Do with that what you must. [[User:whattheworldiswatching] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whattheworldiswatching (talk • contribs) 16:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This article was revised last week after nomination for deletion by Fishal. It is clearly notable and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia (recipient received a national award from the President of the United States), reliably sourced (Marine Corps Times, NYT et al) with multiple verifiable references, and without contention.

Fishal, suggest when you put something on the block for deletion that you re-read it after you hit the "Send" button rather than just posting a come lately reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.107.120 (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC) — 72.83.107.120 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

KEEP. The page has been properly updated with links to articles in NYT, Financial Times, Military publications, etc. Fishal, in your objective analysis, wouldn't you agree the information on the page is not made up. It adheres to the standards outlined in WP:BLP. I agree with the comment above about the Presidential award as well. I saw the CEO of my company has a page on wiki recently. Makes me wonder if the guidelines set forth are more about having a lot of money or being famous rather than really about gathering and sharing information.User:GlennJames —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC). — GlennJames (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is not a single source about Kane that I can see. Those are all by Kane. That does not count, folks. Bearian (talk) 00:52, 14 July 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.