Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Hargitay

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) LlamaAl (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hargitay

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

Notability issue Tatwort (talk) 22:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. LlamaAl (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article already includes signficant coverage specifically about Hargitay in the Sydney Morning Herald: Meet FFA's man of mystery. Additional coverage Aussie World Cup bid 'too clean', says consultant, Australia's 2022 World Cup consultant Peter Hargitay refuses to take responsibility for the bidding debacle, Pearler of a gift adds to Cup bid, Australia paid millions to World Cup lobbyists, The man behind our 2022 bid is not exactly shy in coming forward -- Whpq (talk) 20:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Snow. Clearly meets gng. I recognize nom is a new editor. I would suggest he take some time to observe other AfDs before engaging in future nominations.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Current article is partly WP:AVOIDVICTIM. If the article were to meet standards for BLP, only two sentences would remain. And these two sentence would be BIO1E and therefore a reason for deletion. Subject of the article has indeed been mentioned in several newspapers. However, some of these have been removed due to legal problems: For example: This story [1] does not appear in Sunday Herald's archive anymore, other stories are subject to legal disputes as to be seen here: [2] or here [3] and here: [4]. Article bears potential for legal dispute.Tatwort (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Note: Your nomination counts as a delete !vote, so it not necessary state "delete" explicitly again; subsequent commentary is normally prefaced with a boldfaced "comment". -- Whpq (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Issues of details which are not directly related to the reason for notability per WP:AVOIDVICTIM are things that can be taken care of through regular editting, and do not necessitate the deletion of the article. With respect to WP:BIO1E, that guideline does not preclude a standalone article on an individual related to an event. The newspaper sources noted above show coverage that spans a period time (notabiltiy is not temporary), and includes articles that cover him as the primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I concur with the above comments by Whpq. And urge nom to cross out his boldmarked "Delete", and replace it with "Comment."--Epeefleche (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2013 (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.