Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Kovacs

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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 00:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Kovacs

This person does not seem to meet our notability criteria, most importantly "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Having a few articles in student newspapers does not qualify as being the SUBJECT of independant secondary source material. There also seems to be a conflict of interest with the primary contributor to this article. Avi (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is just the primary criterion. Even if such sources are lacking in number, if the confirm something like the person receiving a notable award, or being widely read, than that determines notability. Don't get hung up about one criterion. Use them all. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain that this person meets any of them (note, I said "most importantly"), which is why I am seeking community input :) -- Avi (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Avi (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability as a author--one published book, not yet notable: Humble King Returning King, which should also be nominated for deletion. Both of them purely promotional--I think they are both very close to a G11 speedy. DGG (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Author does not seem to be notable independtly of his single book, which itself may not be notable either. 212.159.69.4 (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Didn't notice I was logged out. Above comment by me. JulesH (talk) 09:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity article by and about nn author andy (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per DGG's comments, and also adding that the book is self-published. This link shows that Pete Kovacs is RNK Publishing, which has released a total of one book.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:36, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do NOT Delete Not sure why all of the sudden this onslaught of delete notices. The SCU Advocate is not just a "student newspaper" it is widely distributed and read all throughout Silicon Valley where Santa Clara University School of Law is located. Our professors are some of the USAs top attorneys and alumni are in Silicon Valley law firms and corporations. You can delete this but I will count it as pure religious discrimination. As one law prof said, "what goes around comes around." Be sure to consider what Pete Kovacs and Humble King Returning King are all about...fighting injustice, oppression, suppression of free speech, anti-Semitism. Wikipedia is primarily a "free-speech" forum. Maybe you should actually read the article "The Patriot Act: Noble Ends, Questionable Means" before you act in the manner that is evidenced here. I figured the CIA/FBI/VP Cheney would've come to terms with their atrocities by now, but it seems they are influencing this generation to act like fascists. Hkp-avniel (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the merit of his views are not the issue: we discriminate neither for nor against any particular viewpoint, and we almost always delete articles about authors whose self-published books are their principal notability quite regardless of whether they're fiction,. politics, or religion. The point of this being an encyclopedia is that it cannot be used for promotion. DGG (talk) 21:34, 31 December 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.