Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby (Robert) Bolger

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby (Robert) Bolger[edit]

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

Non-notable horse breeder. The last paragraph is copied from what appears to be his death notice -- the article doesn't mention it, but he died this past November 2. My condolences, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and I can't find anything that would indicate he passes WP:BIO. Speedy was declined and PROD removed, so it's here now. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC). Edited to add: the [version] of the article did mention his death and funeral.[reply]

Keep - Bolger was one of ten people profiled in the book A Way With Horses - which is sufficient to establish notability. Racepacket (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Point taken, but on balance I don't believe that a profile in a book about people "who have spent their lives working with horses in County Galway" constitutes the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which WP:GNG looks for. And I note that the publisher, Ardcru Books, seems to be a tiny outfit that only publishes books about Connemara ponies; I can find out almost nothing about it. In fact, if you click the link for the "Ardcru weblog" on the left-hand side of their page, it turns out to be "Niamh's Weblog," the site of the author of "A Way With Horses." I think that pretty much means this is a self-published book. And I don't know how many people there can be in County Galway who are fanatics about Connemara pony breeding, so I'd have to think Niamh O'Dochartaigh and Bobby Bolger knew each other. Just adding this perspective to the discussion. --Glenfarclas (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases where a biographer writes about a living person, the author gets to know the subject. I agree that the secondary source should be independent of the subject, but the jury is still out on whether this source qualifies or not. Racepacket (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable horse breeder as evidenced by the existence of a good source. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the book would cut it as a RS, it seems too limited in scope to be considered significant coverage. If I published a book about people who live in my house, they'd be in a published book, but would that make them notable? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2009 (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.