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. Randykitty (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Mooradian[edit]

Tom Mooradian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Delete. Poorly sourced WP:BLP of a print journalist associated entirely with a single newspaper market (and not even its major newspaper, either, but with suburban community weeklies), whose only strong claim of wider notability is that he once published a book. But the book was self-published by "Moreradiant Pub" (read that name and then say his surname out loud again if you don't believe me), so its existence is not an automatic inclusion freebie under WP:AUTHOR. Further, it's referenced to blogs and a non-notable niche publication rather than reliable sources that can actually carry WP:GNG, and the rest of the sourcing here isn't any better -- the sourcing otherwise stacks almost entirely onto the fact that he played basketball in high school, mainly comprising the basketball league's own primary source historical directory of its own players. None of this, neither the substance nor the sourcing, is good enough to get him in the door. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sorry but I beg to differ here because I think the issue with the coverage is there isn't much available online from 50s and 60s today. I can still give several reference here that are from notable sources from back in 60s, here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 & many more. All of these are newspaper cuttings from Notable newspapers, if he wasn't notable why so much coverage in newspapers then! You may disagree with the content that you can modify or suggest modification but I think the coverage establishes notability. Pyzeseeds123 (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every single high school athlete who exists at all is always going to get his name into the sports section of the local paper from time to time, so all of the ones there that link to the sports page in the Detroit Free Press count for nothing at all toward notability. And of the ones that remain after those are discounted, every single one is either an unsubstantive blurb covering him in the context of nothing that corresponds to a Wikipedia notability criterion, or a page I can't see at all to verify how much it does or doesn't say about him (though considering that every single link I could see failed to be a notability-conferring one, I don't have high hopes for the ones I can't either.) Our notability criteria do not extend an automatic freebie to everybody who's ever gotten their name into any newspaper for any reason at all; in order to count toward getting him over WP:GNG, the coverage has to be substantive and not just a glancing namecheck of his existence. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Per IAR. Journalist biographies are among the hardest to source out at WP since much of what is available is generated by the publications for which they worked while biographical coverage in competing papers is non-existent for obvious reasons. My own inclination is to be inclusionist towards the bios of retired journalists and deletionist towards the bios of newcomers on the make. Carrite (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And what about any of this constitutes a reason why the journalist in question merits permanent coverage in an encyclopedia? Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- the only claim of notability could be under WP:NAUTHOR, but I've not been able to find any meaningful reviews of the subject's memoirs. Ping DGG to see if they may be able to check on library holdings. Or if any reviews are presented, I'd be happy to look at them. The subject's life is an interesting one, but unfortunately does not quite rise to the level of encyclopedia notability per guidelines or currently available sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The book is held by 52 libraries indexed by Worldcat. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Library holdings aren't a notability claim that exempts a person from having to be sourced better than has been shown here, and 52 isn't that high a number in the first place considering there are millions of libraries in the world. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't making any such claim, but was simply responding to K.e.coffman's wish for information about library holdings. I agree that 52 is a low number, but I'm not sure that there are millions of libraries in the world unless you count my collection of books on shelves and piled up in various rooms and in boxes in the attic as a library. And Worldcat only indexes major libraries so being in several hundred might be an indication that a book and/or its author merits further investigation as to notability. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I was a little too busy with real life to take part in the failed AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward L. Keithahn earlier this year, yet another exercise in pushing the POV that the only biographical subjects we need be concerned about are living people notable within the past decade or so who are good at getting themselves mentioned in certain places on the web. I don't know what was more pointless, the AFD itself, or that the "keep" rationale based on a WorldCat search amounted to the only significant improvement to the article since. It tells me that it's a waste of my time to go hunt again for the book sources from the 1940s and 1950s which not only clearly demonstrate his notability but provide meaningful biographical information if other editors believe the only purpose that Wikipedia articles serve is to reflect the results of their incidental web search. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- still delete as the library holdings do not seem sufficient to presume notability. BTW I notified WikiProject Armenia of this AfD a week ago, so I think we've made a good faith effort to locate sources and establish notability. Does not meet the notability guidelines at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Local journalist who self-published a memoir. It sounds like he's had an interesting life, but nothing in the article suggests WP:Notability. --MelanieN (talk) 23:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In addition to Pyzeseeds123 (talk · contribs)'s sources, here is a book source providing a paragraph of coverage about the subject:
  1. De Waal, Thomas (2015). Great Catastrophe: Armenians and Turks in the Shadow of Genocide. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 120. ISBN 0199350698. Retrieved 2016-10-31.

     The book notes:

     Tom Mooradian was a 19-year-old from Detroit and one of the few American-Armenians to migrate. In his memoir The Repatriate, he relates how he quickly realized he had made a mistake and sank into depression. He had renounced his US citizenship and bought a one way ticket. Letters home were censored so as not to spoil the propaganda message. In a coded postcard, Mooradian warned his parents not to come, asking them to encourage Uncle Avak and Auntie Vartouhie (who were both deceased) to repatriate: "Our homeland needs more workers like them. They will fit in with the rest of us who are dying to see them." His family took the hint and did not follow him. Mooradian eventually made himself into a leading Soviet Armenian basketball player and 13 years later found a way back to the United States.

  Cunard (talk) 04:47, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the link above is not only from the start, an interview, but it's literally a set life story about his thoughts of what happened in his life "he warned his parents not to come, asking them to encourage ncle Avak and Auntie Vartouhie (both are deceased)...." Mooradian [became] a basketball player and [back to the United States]". Not only is that blatantly a webhosted web of information about not only some random uncle and aunt, but it's not actually relevant to notability therefore if that's literally the best there is, an interviewed set of quotes and named family, it's not significant or substance. SwisterTwister talk 05:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- updated my vote to full "delete" as no better sources have been presented than what I was able to find myself, including the passage above. This is one paragraph -- clearly insufficient to build a bio article. The rest of the sources are equally unconvincing. The subject is not notable as an author, and there's nothing besides that. Per WP:WHYN, there is no reason to have an article on the subject.K.e.coffman (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly there are hardly any secondary sources with significant coverage about the subject. Per WP:WHYN we create articles if we have enough coverage. Over here, I don't see that (except for that brief mention in that one source). For WP:AUTHOR, the library holdings are not sufficient enough to show that the subject was a significant author. Even if we assume that journalists have less coverage overall, notable journalists will either win some award (WP:CREATIVE) or their works will be quoted in multiple news reports which helps to gauge significance. The newspapers.com references are not useful here as they are the type of routine local coverage which any local athlete will receive - it's not useful for notability. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2016 (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.