Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rudi Vansnick
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete - not notable: no independent sources could be found; the only new sources cited were business networking type sites and Ghits [1], which just verifies his existence and marketing savvy. Bearian (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rudi Vansnick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Self bio by editor User:Ruudisoc, which could not be improved to required Wiki standard through use of sufficient independent sources. Most sources I can find relate to either self-created websites or social networking media Trident13 (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete non-notable individual. --Killerofcruft (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No sources or proof of notability. Editor Ruudisoc's only edits are on this topic Artene50 (talk) 05:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Information here and here. I'm not normally a "keep" person for iffy articles, but this is anything but; it asserts notability, with the WSA's being an important set of awards and their site confirming that the person in question was on the Grand Jury, and about 155,000 ghits for him. His only contribution yes, but that doesn't undermine the reliability of the page, only the reliability of him as an editor. Ironholds 08:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Social networks bio pages - which are self-written - are not considered WP:SOURCE due to their non-compliant WP:NPOV positions. The two direct sources you quote are Social Network self bio's - Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I probably should have read the pages slightly more. However, the ghits and presidency of the belgian internet society chapter are grounds for notability and I have also found an example of independent media coverage here (which I did check to make sure it's not some myspace equivalent :P. Ironholds 10:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have a look at WP:BIO. Ghits are not a valid basis on which to make a notability decision - the person has got to have done something valid as there defined to make them notable. If you check the Ghits listings, then your single reference is (probably) valid but way back in the Ghits listing, and its only one source. Which is why I said in the nomination could not be improved to required Wiki standard through use of sufficient independent sources. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, I probably should have read the pages slightly more. However, the ghits and presidency of the belgian internet society chapter are grounds for notability and I have also found an example of independent media coverage here (which I did check to make sure it's not some myspace equivalent :P. Ironholds 10:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Social networks bio pages - which are self-written - are not considered WP:SOURCE due to their non-compliant WP:NPOV positions. The two direct sources you quote are Social Network self bio's - Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even so, we have a position at the head of a national Internet Society chapter, independent media coverage and a member of the jury for a significant set of awards. I maintain this is enough for a keep regardless of the creators intent. Ironholds 12:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2008 (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.