Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Hartman

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. -- Cirt (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hartman

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

fails WP:BIO. gnews only lists other Tim Hartmans. currently referenced with primary sources. LibStar (talk) 05:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only refs in the article are to self-published sources OR are trivial and short in nature. No evidence of extensive or in-depth writing about this person by independent, reliable sources. Therefor, fails WP:BIO. --Jayron32 06:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote based on changes to the article since my last vote. The article needs serious editing to bring it in line with WP:MOS, but the new sources make it clearly a keepable article.--Jayron32 02:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has been tweaked repeatedly to meet Wiki requirements. Of the referenced magazines none are self-published. 1 might be considered biased. The remainder are independent sources. Trivial is a matter of opinion. Do the wiki guidelines give a minimum word count for a references validity? In the martial arts world, who if not main stream publications, and international ones at that, are considered 'valid'? Bob Hubbard (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a lot of unsourced claims in the article, which should either be documented or removed. However, I believe there is sufficient magazine coverage to show notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he's been on the cover of a significant martial arts magazine, for example. JJL (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

where is the Wikipedia policy which states this is a criterion for notability? LibStar (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GNG, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Being the subject of a Cover story in a reliable publication is generally considered significant. --Jayron32 05:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His non-trivial coverage in several different magazines allows him to pass WP:GNG. Astudent0 (talk) 14:54, 6 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.