Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Benda

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. Some hours early, but it is snowing. Courcelles 00:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Benda[edit]

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

Delete. Fails WP:PROF. Unreferenced since 2006. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ keep to article about Jablonec nad Nisou - if a source for his biographical data can be found. Ten minutes of google and google scholar searching does not produce any sources tat do not seem to be wikipedia mirrors.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- What about WP:UNDUE. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - What do you mean? As far as I know Undue only adresses relative weight within articles not notability. It seems rasonable that the author of the first history of Jablonec is due some measure of weight in the article about that city.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not necessarily. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 23:27, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 23:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 23:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'~~Comment'~~ -- The article is not in fact totally unreferenced: there is the book that he wrote. However, I am doubtful whether a local historian who wrote a book about his home town really qualifies as notable. Nevertheless, I think a merge to the article on the town would be better than a plain delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further vote below. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added the link to the book after the afd nom.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has enough coverage in dozens of books which make him appear notable. If he wasn't notable he wouldn't have been covered by multiple reliable sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator should carefully read our guidelines before nominating. For example, instead of tagging it with CSD or AFD templates, he could tag an {{unreferenced}} template on the top. AFD is not the right venue.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 12:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article had been tagged as unreferenced since 2006; so that is not a valid criticism. I changed that tag to refimprove yesterday after the link to the GBooks copy of his book was given. LadyofShalott 14:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, at the time of the nomination this was deletion worthy, not speedy deletion worthy, given that he is the verified author of a book as Lady says in the history summary of the page. The difference though is that when assessing whether or not an article is fit "for the bin" one must look in google books and be very confident that the person is not worthy of an article on wikipedia. So Orange Pumpkin is right that the editor should have picked up on the sources available and have either asked the original creator to expand it or to expand it themselves instead of bringing it here. The flaws here are both in the article writer originally for not demonstrating he is actually notable and adding more content and in the nominator for not picking up on the masses of hits in google books and understanding that articles can be quickly expanded which in the end make wikipedia more valuable as a resource. But I believe the google book scenario was different in 2006 and at the time of creation would not have found what we can on him today.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An example is an example.--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 12:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is completely backed up with plenty of sources, hence Adolf Benda is notable enough. Jaguar (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Michael Bednarek and others, adding: his book is a reference in other publications, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per others. The article is well supported and written. He is certainly notable for wikipedia. Royal Mate1 04:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - since nomination, the article has been greatly expanded with multiple sources. Notability has clearly been established. LadyofShalott 19:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is clearly a substantial article on a significant person, of whom I had never heard. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep properly referenced and notable, whatever it was at the time of nomination. 23:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

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.