Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Wittmack

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.-Wafulz (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Charlie Wittmack

Charlie Wittmack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Speedied before, keeps being recreated, fails WP:BIO, Delete Secret ^account 21:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikipopuli, a more suitable wiki for biographies of people whose notability is in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheYellowCabin (talk • contribs) 04:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki is only for another wikipedia project, not a private wiki. Secret ^account 05:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep - There appears to be articles about him such as this but are behind pay walls. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The only sources I can find via a Google web or news archive search search seem to be self-published, local to Iowa City, or trivial mentions. I would expect information on an American whose achievements are so recent to be readily available on the web if he was really notable. The mere fact of being the first person from a state with a population of 3 million to climb Everest surely doesn't give him automatic notability - would the first person from Dingxi, which has a similar population, to perform a similar feat be considered automatically notable for that? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
• question I do not think he's notable in any real sense, but according to WP:V, there is no exclusion of local sources. Nor is there in WP:BLP, or anywhere else. If we mean that Notability is judged only or primarily by the ability to write an objective article, there is no basis in policy for excluding this one. We judge "worthy of notice" by whether people have noticed it in RSs, and the newspapers in the search are RSs. (Personally, I think it's absurd not to have specific criteria instead of WP:N, but so it is. Meeting the general notability criterion is enough, even though it gives rather odd results. ) DGG (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Reply. I agree that verifiability is beyond doubt, but I think that there has been plenty of consensus in the past at AfD that this level of coverage in local newspapers isn't enough for notability, even if that's not spelt out explicitly in the guidelines. There are countless small-town mayors, failed parliamentary candidates, run-of-the-mill shopping malls, local chambers of commerce, elementary schools etc. which get lots of coverage in the local press, but consensus has been to delete their articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Trivial article with no refs. --Funper (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete no evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2008 (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.