Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabe Rivera

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 of the debate was delete. W.marsh 04:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Gabe Rivera

This article was nominated as a non-notable biography speedy deletion by User:Makemi, but I think there's enough of an assertion of notability to require an AfD nomination. I'll drop a note on User:Makemi's talk page so that the user has an opportunity to explain further. —Cleared as filed. 13:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep He founded a site with alexa rank of 11,623 which makes him varsity rather than junior varsity Ruby 13:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as per nom. Just because a site might be "notable" (I don't think it is), doesn't mean the creator of the site is. --Karnesky 18:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Look at the references: "dictionary.reference.com" and "blog.memeorandum.com". I doubt the "company" should have an article, let alone him. As for the Google test, there are plenty of other people with the name "Gabe Rivera," and I doubt that a significant chunk of the 14,000 GHits are of this individual. (I happen to know two people named "Gabe Rivera" personally, oddly enough.) When you take that into account, it doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO by my standards. --Kinu 19:10, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete. A google search ("gabe rivera" memoreandum) returns over 12,000 hits, so it appears that this Gabe Rivera is the subject of most of those hits. Very specific search parameters ("founder of memoreandum" "gabe rivera") returns 27 hits. However, this latter search reveals nothing but blog mentions. Thus, he may be more notable than previously thought, but the circle of that notability is very specialized. --Fuhghettaboutit 19:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. As the author of the page, this vote is naturally going to be percieved as biased. The comments about Gabe vs memeorandum are understandable, however, in this context Gabe is the sole founder and operator of memeorandum. Aspects of the article deserving extension (I have reclassified it to a stub) include the fact that the work undertaken so far on this project has been entirely at Gabe's expense and unfunded, and it is making a big difference to the way the many people who use the service consume their news. This is expected to increase as more people are engaged in Blogging and reading news in this way, and as such is provides an increasingly important community service for the wider internet population. With technical consideration, Gabe has developed a number of aspects of this technology and its algorithms which are highly unique, and from a commercial perspective it is quite likely that he, as a person, will receive significant notoriety in the context of a investment revival in dot com fortunes, as he is engaged in discussions for aquisition at the moment that may make him a pin-up boy for the Web 2.0 movement in a similar light to this Business 2.0 article of this month: [1]. While the decision of noteworthy lies in the hands of the Wikipedia community, I'd suggest this stub is well worth keeping and expanding.
• Delete Stuff about memeorandum belongs on Wikipedia site about memeorandum, if anywhere. Otherwise, fails WP:BIO. FCYTravis 07:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I agree w/above - not notable enough. Eusebeus 20:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep or rename and recontextualize to be about memeorandum.com Kappa 04:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Gamaliel 04:12, 7 February 2006 (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.