Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cory Kimm

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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cory Kimm

Not notable. There does not appear to be enough reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to maintain an independent article on this topic. See, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL -- Suntag ☼ 10:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Bearcat (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that there doesn't seem to be very much of anything in the way of WP:RS about him as an article topic in his own right (virtually all of the web hits he gets are mere mentions, not valid references), in principle it shouldn't be impossible to write a referenceable article about a person who's hosted a nationally syndicated radio program. Keep if references turn up before close; delete without prejudice against future recreation if they don't. Bearcat (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearcat. DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear to have sufficient notability. Shell ^babelfish 01:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Weak keep per the sources found by Paul Erik. As DoubleBlue says, not sure there's enough for a good article, but that can come in time. Shell ^babelfish 04:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has had at least three non-trivial mentions in the Toronto Star. I've added those references just now. Keep per the general notability guideline. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Bearcat suspects an article is possible and Paul Erik has found references he asserts are non-trivial. I am still concerned that the sources may not be adequate for a WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR article but the current stub is acceptable and time may be given to improve the article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:38, 22 October 2008 (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.