Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Son of the Bronx

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Son of the Bronx

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

As a major contributor, I'm not confident this satisfies the general notability guideline. Each secondary source gives only trivial mentions or citation of the subject. ₂₃W 00:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as each secondary (many of which are pretty big name in the ratings biz, such as TV by the Numbers of the Futon Critic) cites him as an "expert" for Nielsen ratings. I hardly think ascribing ratings info to him counts as "trivial" mention (he's being credited with numbers... there's not much else you can expand upon with raw data). Also, he's consistently cited, and not just from one site, but many.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gen. Quon: I mean trivial in the sense that coverage is only limited to a byline or a reference to him. This isn't a matter of him being a reliable source (I'm still convinced he is, but the site is currently being challenged at WT:TV; perhaps you'd like to comment?). ₂₃W 00:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Ah, I see. Yeah, I commented.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per above. Dcbanners (talk) 11:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, certainly noteworthy and encyclopedic and educational. — Cirt (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2014 (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.