Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Rosen

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. Please note this is a nonadministrator close. The Evil Spartan 23:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nick Rosen

Nick Rosen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable author. Prod tag removed by original author without comment. Delete'. DMG413 15:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Author does initially appear to be rather non-notable; however, he does seem to have an involved career in the liberal arts which makes him notable in my book. If this article were wikified it could pass, but it is questionable whether this is self-advertisement by the author himself. Since there are some verifiable sources on Google, I think this page could stay if improved. --David Andreas 17:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 06:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the Author certainly is notable. He has generated a significant amount of public awareness to the Off-Grid campaign in the UK - including BBC TV news & radio interviews in May 2007 - and he has indeed had a colourful career in the liberal arts. Nick Rosen is an award-winning producer and an esteemed journalist - I believe he wrote several articles on the dawn of the Internet for The Times newspaper in the early nineties. I respectfully suggest that this does indeed makes him notable. One has only to conduct a search for "Nick Rosen" on Google for verifiable sources. This link points to an article for the Daily Telegraph: [1] and an article by the Times Online [2].

I propose that I edit article is edited for neutrality, to remove any suggestion of self-advertisement. Thank you. Nightfly1 12:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Y not? 17:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - agreed with Nightfly1 above: he's notable enough so the article should stay provided its style is significantly improved. -- Hux 20:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
• weak keep I think its passable, sufficient varied aspects, though perhaps none of them by itself would qualify. DGG 03:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

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.