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. The keeps failed to explain why this user is notable. Nearly all the sources and arguments were rebutted by those wishing to delete, and there was not nearly enough material to sway consensus towards keeping an already deleted article. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Roger Currie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

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

Procedural nomination only. This was deleted as a recreation of deleted material, but I restored because I did not think it was substantially identical to the originally deleted article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - this should be speedied for obvious reasons to anyone involved in the first AFD i.e. notability has not been established and it's been recreated without notability still. Also, SarekOfVulcan has wikistalked my edits to show up here to punish me for opposing him on Dreamhost. Nice, Sarek. Very nice. I nominate this for deletion, and it's deleted. and then today I opposed SarekOfVulcan's stance on another article, and he comes and overturns the delete on this article totally unrelated to him. Awesome. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Theserialcomma, you are confusing me. And I mean, in a big way. When my original article that was written for Book Author and Dating Expert Alan Roger Currie was deleted, you were the one who encouraged me to write a new, more improved second article with significantly more citations, references, etc.; Then, you contradict this encouragement and advice by nominating my second article for deletion. I don't get this series of actions at all. Chicago Smooth (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • don't be confused. i told you not to recreate the article until notability had been established. i said that approximately 14 times to you and tried to help you when it was userfied. then you recreated it within 24 hours without addressing the notability issue. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have a response to what you said Theserialcomma, but I'm simply going to take the editor Hobit's advice and take the high road. Chicago Smooth (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:BIO. Person has not "been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." And by "reliable", I mean those sources "with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and that provide a greater "degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence." — Satori Son 19:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well Satori Son, I've browsed through literally dozens, if not hundreds of articles on here of men and women in different fields, and very few of the subjects I browsed were featured prominently as a subject in a major newspaper article or magazine article. The subject of my article is about to be quoted in Black Enterprise magazine, and I think that accounts for his credibility as a dating and relationship author and expert. Chicago Smooth (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is an unfortunate reality that there are other articles on Wikipedia that also do not meet our standards for inclusion. — Satori Son 18:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keepweak keep The previous AfD provided more than enough sources. Also, I'd strongly suggest that Chicago Smooth put a sock in it if he/she actually wants this article kept. Hobit (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, okay, okay. I will take heed to your advice Hobit!! Chicago Smooth (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, updated !vote based on Marc Kupper's review of sources. Still think this passes the bar, but I'll admit it's close per WP:N. Nice job Marc. Hobit (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Person has "been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject".
  • The Post-Tribune "Honesty policy", September 6, 2006, Janis Moore; "Straight Talk Success", September 18, 2008, Lisa Deneal.
  • The San Francisco Examiner "Alan Roger Currie: The Interview, Part 1 of 2", May 13, 2009, Ian Coburn; "Part 2 with Alan Roger Currie", May 20, 2009, Ian Coburn.

That should be enough. Four articles, from two newspapers, three different years, three different writers, two different states, half the country apart. Two of each would have been enough. In addition, there is his winning The Chicago Miller Lite Comedy Search and lesser appearances in national media, such as a quote in Essence Magazine July 2008 [1], and a segment on The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet August 2008 [2], and another, less indepth, newspaper piece from The Times of Northwest Indiana "Times Correspondent puts himself on the line for IU class", Rob Earnshaw, May 9, 2009, which might not have been enough by themselves, but when added together certainly strengthen the qualification. --GRuban (talk) 01:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Examiner.com, a "blog-like platform" based in Denver, is not the same as The San Francisco Examiner newspaper, and not even close to being a reliable source. — Satori Son 18:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Ttonyb1's work, the Ian Coburn pieces likely aren't from the San Francisco Examiner. We do have an article on Ian Coburn, but he's not a newspaper. However, that still leaves two indepth newspaper articles, years apart, from different authors, and three less indepth pieces, so the cumulative does, I believe, still make him pass Wikipedia:Notability. --GRuban (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the reliable and verifiable sources about the subject and available in the article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 15:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• There is no evidence the article appeared in either the web or print versions of the San Francisco Examiner. A Google search of individual and San Francisco Examiner gives no hits.
• The Examiner.com website is, per Wikipedia, is a news site that "...allows local citizen journalists to share their city-based knowledge on a blog-like platform..."
• I also found a reprint of the article listed as on the pay site www.highbeam.com. It is at The Neal–Marshall Alumni Club newsletter. ttonyb1 (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ttonyb1. Well researched. --GRuban (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - still fails to meet our standards of notability. Passing mentions and quotes do not constitute substantial coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - My final say so. Primary argument in favor of maintaining article: The original article for Book Author and Talk Radio Personality Alan Roger Currie was not nearly as thorough as the one now, and it was active for a year, if not longer, without any challenges for deletion. And this is when the subject of the article had far less credentials and accomplishments. So I can't identify any valid reasons for deletion, when the new article is significantly better than an article that lasted for 12-15 months without one challenge for deletion Chicago Smooth (talk) 13:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - to closing admin: it would appear that there are more votes to keep than delete. but let's look at the content of what the keeps are saying: it should be kept because there are passing, trivial mentions, which are not widespread or substantial. this is a reason to delete, not keep. i think the lack of real notability overrules any votes. Theserialcomma (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way are two standard sized in-depth articles in the Post-Tribune, 2 years apart, passing, trivial mentions? --GRuban (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added Comment - I don't know much significance is placed on "electronic media" or "audio media," but I have to add that Mr. Currie was featured in Fall 2006 on the Walt "Baby" Love show (who is considered the African-American equivalent to Casey Kasem); Anyone in the African-American community knows: Walt "Baby" Love does not interview "non-notable" types. Love either interviews those who are established stars, or those who he genuinely feels are "rising stars"; This is a Host who has interviewed the likes of John Legend, Stevie Wonder, Aretha Franklin and Justin Timberlake, among others. Love rarely even interviews people who aren't in the music industry. And he requested an interview with Mr. Currie to discuss his book. I think that is worth noting. Chicago Smooth (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete coverage in 3rd party sources is trivial. Lacks the kind of significant coverage demanded by WP:BIO RadioFan (talk) 17:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:N. I went through the existing references and evaluated each for WP:N. The yes/no is if I saw that reference as qualifying under WP:GNG.

1. No - Self - Alan Roger Currie. "Biography for Alan Roger Currie". The Mode One Approach website. http://modeone.net/AlanRogerCurrie.html. Retrieved 2009-08-15.
2. Yes - 452 words independent coverage (A copy of this article is available on line at http://alumni.indiana.edu/nealmar/docs/fall06.pdf on page 9.) - Moore, Janis (2006-09-06). "Honesty Policy: Gary native publishes book on his dating philosophy". Post-Tribune.
3. No - trivial - "Alan Roger Currie wins the 1989 Miller Lite Comedy Search". Spike.com. http://www.spike.com/video/alan-currie-wins/2913040. Retrieved 2009-08-15.
4. No - Database - Adrienne Yates. "Biography for Alan Roger Currie". Internet Movie Database Biographies. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3113515/bio. Retrieved 2009-08-15.
5. No - Database - "IMDb Filmography for Alan Roger Currie". IMDb. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3113515/. Retrieved 2009-08-15.
6. No - Was in audience and on air for 15 seconds to ask a question - "Alan Roger Currie appears on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno". YouTube.com. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUAMlRaUZ-k. Retrieved 2009-08-15.
7. MaybeNo as it looks like there are no barriers/requirements to being a host on www.blogtalkradio.com[3]. Thus appearing is not an indicator of notability. However, while hosting he did have some callers meaning there is coverage though it's not known if the callers were independent of the subject. - "SoundBits: Alan Roger Currie Does His Thing for the Singles Scene". http://blog.blogtalkradio.com/celebrities/soundbits-alan-roger-currie-singles-scene/. Retrieved 2009-08-15.
   
   I switched this one from Maybe to No as I took another look and see that it's not going to pass a hard WP:RS. There's no evidence that these are independent callers. Also, even if they were independent the callers do not seem to be researching and covering the subject (Alan Roger Currie) in significant detail but rather they are asking softball questions. Thus this is more of WP:SELFPUB that can be used as a source about the subject but is not good evidence of notability. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. No as the wiki article says "Currie was quoted" which does not pass WP:N but also, there is no evidence of a quote in the on-line copy of this article[4] meaning it's a failed-verification. - Bridgette Bartlett and Demetria L. Lucas (July 2008). "They Thought I'd Never Get Married". Essence magazine.
9. Maybe as Currie is a co-guest on a TV show for a little under six minutes. There appears to be coverage of Currie but as I don't have sound on the computer I can't put this down as a yes/no but I'm leaning towards yes - "Relationship 101: Is it Normal When Your Significant Other does...". The Morning Show with Mike and Juliet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hama3AAbbxM. Retrieved 2009-08-15.
10. No as Currie is never the subject of the article which is about a class he taught - Earnshaw, Rob (2009-05-09). "Times Correspondent puts himself on the line for IU class". Northwest Indiana TIMES.

References #2, #9, and possibly #7, appear to qualify the subject as notable. --Marc Kupper|talk 09:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments –
  • Most importantly, Marc, nicely done.
  • I would probably lump blogradio in the same category as blogs. Although there were some callers, almost every blog has some readers.
  • Are one small article about a e-book > pamphlet > self-published book; and a short appearance on morning "talk" show are significant. Not sure these are enough to support the contention that there is significant/adequate coverage of the individual. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about source #2 - the one "yes" - this is just a tiny article that reads more like an advertisement than anything else. i don't doubt he's had weak mentions like this in other places, but this isn't significant. #9 and #7 = no because there is no verifiability through third party, reliable sources Theserialcomma (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding item #2

• The Gary Post-Tribune has roughly 50 references for articles[5]. It looks like they had a significant article about trains that many articles are using. FWIW - it does seem to be a newspaper that follows normal RS standards.
• Janis Moore appears to be one of their reporters[6] and can be presumed to be independent of Alan Roger Currie.
• While the article was likely written as a Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) item this does not preclude it from being used as evidence of notability.
• Unfortunately WP:N does not give good guidance on trivial vs. significant/detailed. The article is over 1 sentence and under 360 pages...

I need to run on an errand but when I get back will take another look at the article. What I'm thinking about is if the author, Janis Moore, is covering the subject or she allowed Alan Roger Currie to essentially self-promote.

I'm ambivalent about the TV show appearance (#9 in the list) and will rig up the sound. I wished WP:N or WP:PEOPLE discussed the subject of interviews. Typically the interviewer asks questions and the subject replies an length. Thus while we may learn much about the subject, and they are great sources of information, is this "significant coverage" that "address the subject directly in detail." It's obviously passing "address the subject..." but where's the line on "significant?" Gotta run. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that there was a second article on Currie from the same newspaper in 2008? [7] --GRuban (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did see the snippet that's available on highbeam.com. 20% of the article is visible and while it looks interesting I don't feel like giving hibeam.com my credit card # to look at the remaining 431 words. It likely does cover Currie rather than the book.

I ran out of time this weekend but someone interested in keeping the article on WP should go ahead, use something from the publicly visible part of the article, and include the article as a reference. From the way it's worded it appears to be 2nd person coverage. Even if the article is to be deleted you'll have a pretty good idea of the sort of thing WP is looking for. The author is active in promoting meaning within a few years there'll be enough coverage and Alan Roger Currie will be "notable" per the WP rules.

My local public library gives me access to four periodical databases but not hibeam.com. FWIW, none of those databases had anything on Alan Roger Currie other than finding the Essence magazine mention, a Letter to the Editor in Time 155.15 (April 17, 2000) written by Alan Roger Currie, and one of his books. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Beyond the brief local newspaper coverage and the appearance as co-guest on that morning show, this is just a hodgepodge of trivial or passing citations, and I can't shake the sense that they reflect more of a talent for self-promotion and "getting noticed" than actual notability. That said, I appreciate that reasonable people can differ on the bottom line, hence the "weak". JohnInDC (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The first AfD was correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you explain why you feel the above sources don't meet WP:N? Hobit (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2009 (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.