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The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Comisar[edit]

Steve Comisar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Vanity article. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn the original concerns have been addressed by editing of the article by Jodi.a.schneider and myself. If there are no more comments I'll probably non-admin close this in a day or two. ttonyb (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – We can work on editing this to make it less of a vanity article on Mr Comisar's behalf, but I would rather not go through the several deletions and re-writing the article every single time. Mr Comisar is a noteworthy individual although not widely known. Nobody is claiming that Wikipedia is a vanity contest, but Mr Comisar has been in the news, he is significant in google searches, and he has authored books. While it is not in the league of getting him on the cover of the New York Times, it is relevant to a wikipedia page. In certain circles, Mr Comisar is anything but a "nobody".

His appearances remain constant as a part of the curriculum put out by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners which does in fact train numerous government agents and private investigators in large part on information provided by Mr Comisar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpartacusXXX (talk • contribs) 09:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article needs a complete rewrite, the sooner the better. Notability is hard to tell. There appears to be a GQ 1-pager on him in the Aug. 2003 (can anybody confirm?). To use the book, "America's Guide to Fraud Prevention", a source establishing that he's actually Brett Champion would be needed. The "solar powered clothes dryer" incident could presumably be sourced to its original appearance (1980's? offline searching in any case); it does get briefly mentioned on Page 221 of Organic Housekeeping: In Which the Non-Toxic Avenger Shows You How to ... By Ellen Sandbeck. Does this make him notable? I don't know... Once the appropriate sources are found, it should become clear one way or the other. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I found this copy of the article. This single article hardly supports notability. Unless more can be found I do not see he meets WP:BIO. FYI - I could not find this on the GQ site and because the copy of the article is a copyright violation of the original text, we cannot point to it as a reference. ttonyb (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks for digging up this article. That's not a 1-pager but a feature article with 5+ pages of text. While we cannot use a copyvio *link* in the references, the printed version of the article is certainly a valid reference. That can also be used to reference that he's Brett Champion. Apparently in 1996 he was on "everything from Dateline NBC" to "Crook & Chase", and given that this article is several years later in 2003, there's an argument that he meets WP:BIO. Thanks to whoever started cleaning this up--it's actually passable now, in my opinion. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've asked asked the resource exchange project to verify that the GQ article actually appeared. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 15:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ttonyb, does the response at the resource exchange project; check seem sufficient to establish the veracity of the article? Jodi.a.schneider (talk)

• Comment – Based on the response, I think we can use the GQ article as a ref, but I don't think it is enough to establish notability for the article. BTW - Thanks and good work tracking this down. ttonyb (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added some additional references to the Talk page. Is that persuasive on his notability? Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Add them to the article and based on the Times and Reuters article, I'll !vote to keep the article. Nice work. ttonyb (talk) 01:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I dumped the references in; hopefully somebody will cleanup formatting and integrate info. Since you nominated it, the easiest thing might be for you to <strike> and withdraw the nomination. Thanks for identifying it as needing proof of notability! Without his full name it really wasn't clear. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – references moved inline ttonyb (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2011 (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.