Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Bergan


 * 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 Keep, consensus is that he does meet the relevant notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Arthur Bergan

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article has been tagged with notability issues for some time and fails to assert notability per WP:N. Tag to speedily delete was removed. Mh29255 (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep seems notable under WP:PROF though the article is in awful shape. JJL (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.   —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete article fails to cite sources and the guy fails WP:PROF. GJ (talk) 23:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable both an an engineer and as an academic. Professor of a major institute at Berkeley. But has anyone checked for copyvio? Sounds very much like a press release. DGG (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * comment I bet the sentence that says "Dr. Bergan also has a grand daughter, Kelsey Bergan, who has acieved a celebrity status through the social utility network facebook." isn't copy vio... but does suggest some COI problems. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Paragraph 4 of the article is lifted from here, but otherwise I can't find any evidence on-line that the article is a copyvio. The article creator User:Ird306, has made edits to  Weigh in motion promoting the International Road Dynamics Inc products (IRD is Bergan & Son's company).  I think this is all done in good faith, but in ignorance of WP policies.  Looking over some of the links Ird306 posted at Requested_articles/Social_sciences  I can see how a case for notability might be made. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


 * keep Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. He would seem to qualify as a significant figure under WP:PROF and while I am not totally happy with the referencing, a google research reveals that verifiable references are there. SorryGuy Talk  07:44, 3 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.