Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Pavlina (second nomination)

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. Sr13 08:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Pavlina

Steve Pavlina (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

DRV permitted the rewriting of this article, given new sources provided. Still, weak delete, as there remains a concern over notability. Xoloz 14:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. There are plenty of sources here, and while none of them go into tremendous depth about Pavlina, I think taken together they are adequate. Note that WP:N no longer requires multiple non-trivial sources: it instead requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Taken together, I'd say the depth of coverage in these sources is significant enough to warrant the article. JulesH 15:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above -- article is well sourced, and sources seem significant enough to establish notability. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, revised article clearly demonstrates notability. --Dhartung | Talk 20:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable for status as award-winning programmer, for multiple mainstream media references of his Personal Development blog material and for the fact that his notability extends across such different fields. --Irrevenant [ talk ] 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 12:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, but I would add warning tags. Bearian 19:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, one of the most popular blogs in the blogosphere. That is certainly credible. Zenja72 11:34, 18 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.