Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Burton, Jr.


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-02-26 09:40Z 

Bob Burton, Jr.

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Nom & vote... Del on this bio of n-n apparent champion of a faded-craze puzzle. Lk'd only by Rdrs; GTest <<234 of about 342 for "Bob Burton" cube>>. --Jerzy•t 16:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: the mechanics of this deletion should be deletion of all revisions, and replacement by a Rdr to something like Speedcubing, but please note that this should be distinguished from a decision to merge with e.g. Speedcubing, in that the purpose of the Rdr would be to give access to our coverage of the practice via one of the rdr'd versions of his name (for e.g., those who caught the name but can't recall a name for the practice), without merging any part of the content of this bio into Speedcubing -- since presumably (and deleter can remedy if not) Speedcubing already has the same lks to other Web coverage of him. The few people who want to learn hints from his bio on how to accomplish what he did, or to test hypotheses about what such experts have in common, are a tiny niche interest, and beyond the scope of WP; it's not even clear we can do more than give them hints at what the closer-to-primary-sources literature is. --Jerzy•t 16:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep That Rubrik's cube is a "faded craze" is not supported by the WP article on it or on speedcubing, both of which has 2007 references. There are 908,000 ghits for +2007 +"Rubik's Cube" and 72,308 for 2008, though probably only about 1 in 10 are relevant.   in any case, one N, always N. That people can find information elsewhere is not relevant to our decisions.   Even if one thinks this a tiny niche, tiny niches are suitable for the subjects of WP articles, as long as there are sources for N. That he is a notable player, is demonstrated by the article. He has won other RC competitions besides speedcubing, and they are mentioned in the article. More refs can be added. If it is thought there are too many articles on RC, a merge should be suggested on their talk pages.  (note: I have no personal interest in this game) DGG 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability is not something that changes with time and wiki policy states that once notable always notable. A reason for delete would be insufficient or deficient sources discovered after a time but not that a toy is not available anymore Alf photoman 21:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact the Rubik's Cube is less popular than it used to be hasn't affected it's notability, so it shouldn't affect the notability of someone who is a champion in it. This is not a valid reason for deletion according to deletion policy. - Mgm|(talk) 09:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bob Burton is one of the most well-known cubers in the sport and so the notability should not be an issue. However, if it still is, please see http://media.www.dailytargum.com/media/storage/paper168/news/2005/01/21/PageOne/Rutgers.Rubiks.Cube.Whiz.Competes-837443.shtml an article that appeared on the front page of The Daily Targum in 2005.  The Daily Targum is the second oldest collegiate newspaper in the United States and has a circulation of 17,000.  Moreover, this should take care of the verifiability.  With respect to original research, everything on the page is true and can be verified at www.worldcubeassociation.org -- Finally, cubing competitions are much more common now than they were in the past.  The sport has increased greatly in popularity and the "craze" is not much of a craze at all.  Cubing competitions have been running longer and more commonly in the past few years than when the puzzle was introduced (www.speedcubing.com). - thexvb| 23:08, 25 February 2007 (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.