Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luke Brugnara

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. After the article was improved and with the comments all keep the nomination was withdrawn (non-admin closure) Youreallycan 10:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Brugnara

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

delete Does not seem to meet requirements for WP:NOTABILITY under WP:BIO -Aaron Booth (talk) 02:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible keep Brugnara is one of the most famous real estate magnates in the world. Just clicking on the Google News link above is more than enough. And this isn't even a lack of WP:BEFORE, as there were four sources already in the article before the nomination, including this six page story entirely about him. I don't even know how to explain how bad this nomination is. Silver seren^C 22:00, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At the time the article contained very little as far as establishing notability outside of him filing bankruptcy, owning a building, and being president of a company that is not itself represented for an article on Wikipedia. An article with the same title was deleted from Wikipedia over notability concerns in 2007. Looking through Google News, the main change as far as him and his notability concerned is his imprisonment for filing false tax returns and poaching fish. Only the former is included in the article, and is just a couple sentences. Unless there is something in the 108 Google news entries that i am missing (many of which are very brief mentions to him or a revised version of the same article already in the results), this is at best borderline notable. And the article it self does very little to establish notability. Although, it is admittedly better than it was when I nominated the article initially. The way you phrased your comment makes it seems as if there is substantial coverage of the subject, is there something that I am missing here? -Aaron Booth (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the coverage of him as an extensive landowner in both San Francisco and Las Vegas? As owning a number of properties and being heavily involved in the real estate market, making him one of the richest real estate owners in the world? Silver seren^C 23:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Brugnara" definently is worthy for an article. After doing further research I found that Luke Brugnara has been a big player in the real estate world for many years and is by no means a simple low profile real estate investor. He has been on the cover of several well known newspapers and magazines such as SF Weekly and the Las Vegan and countless other articals about his many real estate deals. This artical does not go aginst any of wikipedias guidelines and is the essance of what wikipedia is about, documenting and providing accurate information for others. So taking all of this into account, the "Luke Brugnara" artical should 100% stay in place as it would be very wrong to deprive others of information about a credible person who clearly is extraordinary. --Joshualeverburg1 (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)— Joshualeverburg1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Being one the most famous and controversial real estate landlords san francisco has ever had I belive that it is necessary to keep this artical. I have seen other articals here on wikipedia about people I have never even herd of, and other topics that are vastly inferior get full blown articals and attention they dont deserve. --Gordonpenwick (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn After the extensive expansion of the article in both content and sourcing; I feel comfortable in withdrawing my nomination. It is not a clear example of a clearly notable person, still only a couple of in depth sources, a bunch of mirrors to the same sources, and smaller references, but it does now establish Notability within the article. -Aaron Booth (talk) 03:06, 13 March 2012 (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.