Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathan Buzza

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Buzza

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

fails WP:BIO. possibly WP:AUTOBIO. A run of the mill executive. Awards won are minor, and coverage merely confirms he has held roles but nothing in-depth [1]. LibStar (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 17:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 17:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. fails WP:BIO, self promotion created by Nathan Buzza himself, under his Allurecapital (talk · contribs) account. --Hu12 (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG, for example, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. Unscintillating (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

almost all of those sources are from wa business news, he needs wider coverage, not just confirming he won a minor award, or merely making comments in the media which is not in depth coverage. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that those 11 sources together fail WP:GNG? If so, how? Unscintillating (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could find 10 sources on my local police station, doesn't mean it is notable. WP:GNG requires covering the subject in detail. LibStar (talk) 12:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states (bold added), "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.^[1]" Are you saying that these eleven sources fail to contribute to WP:GNG because they are each trivial mentions? How is this possible when in eight of the articles, Buzza is named in the title of the article? Unscintillating (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan buzz a doesn't get coverage in major Australian news outlets, which you would expect given his greatness. See my searches for news.com.au an ABC Australia [13] , [14]. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is an encyclopedia article about Buzza with 18 references. Unscintillating (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

almost all of those 18 refs are not in depth. Winning minor awards does not mean you pass WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO for lack of coverage in MULTIPLE reliable sources; as pointed out by LibStar, all the sources that seem to be about him are from a single outlet, Western Australian Business News. That does appear to qualify as a reliable source, but according to Google News Archive it also seems to be the ONLY Reliable Source that ever said anything about him; everything else is press releases. Wouldn't you think he might have been mentioned at least once by the Sydney Morning Herald [15] for example? --MelanieN (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2012 (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.