Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Williams, American counterfeiter

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. Cool3 (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Williams, American counterfeiter

Non-notable per WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly fits within the basic criteria of WP:BIO. I really don't know what you're talking about.69.134.48.10 Alexandergreenb (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Book or not, it is still WP:ONEEVENT Niteshift36 (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A book-length biography is pretty much as strong an indication of notability as you can get. And the subject appears to have made a career of conterfeiting, rather than just done it once, so I don't see how WP:ONEEVENT can apply. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Phil Bridger states, the subject made a career of counterfeiting. He is most famous for counterfeiting a bill that was deemed uncounterfeitable, but that is not all he is known for. (User talk:Alexandergreenb talk) 16:09, 23 June 2009. (UTC)
The basic notability criteria according to WP:Notability are as follows:

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]

Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."

Arthur Williams adequately fulfills this criterion: he is the subject a book-length biography written by a third party. The depth of coverage is substantial, as it occupies the entire book. The book was published by Gotham Books, a subsidiary of Penguin. The book has been reviewed and the author interviewed on a number of radio programs, television programs, and in newspapers and magazines. I don't see how he could possibly fail to meet the criteria in that sense. Alexandergreenb (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:04, 28 June 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.