Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Cabitto

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 no consensus. WP:NPASR Mark Arsten (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Cabitto

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

Non notable author. His only book has only local reviews, and worldcat shows it in only 8 libraries. DGG ( talk ) 06:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is some local coverage, but that's greatly depreciated as far as notability giving goes since it's fairly common for local papers to cover local people they find interesting. There is some coverage via blog radio type areas, but none that would show that they'd be one of the rare exceptions to the blog rule. I just don't see where Cabitto passes notability guidelines at this time. Userfication is always an option, since the original editor is still active on Wikipedia. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to just delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author and his book (this article covers both) have received substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. That the coverage is regional does not provide adequate rationale for deletion. Substantial coverage is substantial coverage and it's not just local , but spans numerous papers covering a substantial area. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2013 (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.