Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Nathan Buzza

The following edit was an edit-conflict with the closing. It is a response to the statements, "all the sources that seem to be about him are from a single outlet, Western Australian Business News." and "Wouldn't you think he might have been mentioned at least once by the Sydney Morning Herald 15 for example?" Unscintillating (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source from the Sydney Morning Herald. Following are two from the original list that are not from the Western Australia Business News. Ernst & Young is an international accounting firm known as one of the "Big Four". Bloomberg L.P. investing.businessweek.com is a mega-business based in New York that depends on the reliability of their data.

~~Ernst & Young~~ Ernst & Young
Bloomberg

The original article had the following two sources:

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-90384257.html Australasian Business Intelligence
http://www.waitta.asn.au/wai_winnersyear.jsp?Year=2005 Western Australia Information Technology and Telecommunications Awards

Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional references

Here is a recent media release from the government of Australia:

http://www.ausindustry.gov.au/InnovationAustralia/Documents/MediaRelease-InnovationCollaboration.pdf Unscintillating (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WABN references:

Reply

I am reviewing this page as you requested, Unscintillating. I see that you did manage to find something from the Sydney Morning Herald; it is 12 years old which is probably why it did not show up in my search. The two links to Ernst and Young and Bloomberg are dead links. Let me ask why you are posting this here and inviting comment. Are you planning to take the article to Deletion Review or what? --MelanieN (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found a mistake at the end of the URL for the E&Y article and fixed it above. I can't confirm that there is a problem with the Bloomberg Businessweek link.

My immediate problem is that at the AfD you asked a question and while I was working on a response the AfD was closed. It also continues to escape me how anyone/you could look at the list of sources available for this topic and not conclude that it passes WP:GNG. I think my basic thought is that the AfD should have been relisted, not closed. Unscintillating (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not inclined to re-litigate the issue of notability with the article already gone and not available for review. I suppose you could ask the closing administrator to take another look at it or re-open it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could ask to have it userfied to you, add all these new sources you have found, and then move it back to mainspace. --MelanieN (talk) 01:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]