Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Vlack

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. Cirt (talk) 08:29, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Vlack[edit]

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

Firstly, it's been an unsourced BLP for 3 years, and untouched for the past 1.5 years. Second, he lacks notability - primary notability claim ("was awarded the Fred Bowman Literary Award by the Canadian Numismatic Research Society") isn't much to speak of. This is the only article to mention the award, and there's no evidence that the society itself is very noteworthy, thus their award cannot be considered anything near "prestigious". I'm unable to find proper sourcing for him (GBooks, GNews, etc.) so it should not be kept per BLP unless sources can be located. Jamie S93^❤ 21:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. Shadowjams (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Changed based on Eastman's comments. (GregJackP (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Numismatic research is a tricky topic, in part because it's almost entirely done by amateurs, although in many cases by very serious, very bright and very knowledgeable amateurs. Groups like the Canadian Numismatic Research Society pattern themselves after learned societies (complete with a now-refunct scholarly journal, the Transactions of the Canadian Numismatic Research Society, and membership in the invitation only. So people like Vlack are notable within the numismatic community, but are almost unknown outside it. The Fred Bowman award recognizes the recipient as one of the leading numismatic researchers in Canada, and I think that's a strong indicator of notability. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Eastmain reasoning sounds convincing and I do see that this individual is mentioned in numismatic publications. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The mentions in numismatic publications are minor. I have to disagree with Eastmain - if this was "Numismatic Wikipedia" then he would be notable, but I do not find the significant coverage as required by WP:N - the fact that he would be notable within the numismatic community, but not outside of it seems to indicate that he is not notable enough for inclusion in this Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only famous for one NN thing. Bearian (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2010 (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.