Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob P. King


 * 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 no consensus. Daniel (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Bob P. King

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Almost all the references are to his own publications. Is he notable? Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - I did not have any luck finding anything at all on this photographer, except when I searched by "Robert P. King" I found two links to two photo credits with the Duluth newspaper. No exhibition history or collections or publications about him and his work. Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - He's a freelance astronomy writer for Duluth News Tribune and other Astronomy sites under the name Astrobob. His book was reviewed by Emily Lakdawalla . If you read astronomy news online anywhere, he's got to easily be one of the top-10 regular writers of new articles you'll find on visual astronomy and other astronomy news. Tom Ruen (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For living people we need some external references. Rathfelder (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The primary source of personal information for Bob used in the bio was from this interview . I'll see what other independent sources I can find. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:44, 2 July 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: From the discussion I saw at least one confirmable reliable source with significant coverage. Relisting to see if there is more that can be surfaced.
 * Keep Per above, Reliable source coverage is available like, and etc to qualify the subject for WP:GNG. JaredDaEconomist (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , is that second link correct? I get a splash page for what looks an Astronomy blog, but there is no mention of him. Thanks in advance. Netherzone (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Bold third relist to try and reach consensus on this.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Other than the Mayfield review in the Duluth paper, I couldn't find any other strong reliable secondary sources. However, I think the smattering of coverage that does exist is probably sufficient. Here are the sources I found: a passing mention in the Star Tribune, a review of his book in Astronomy Now magazine (apparently), a short bio for an event at the Bell Museum (unclear independence), and some interviews with community radio stations.  The Bell bio and the book review together seem like reasonable coverage, but additional evidence that this person has attracted interest beyond regionally is still missing. Suriname0 (talk) 14:11, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Further passing mention in a book: "American amateur  astronomer  and  author  Bob    King,  author  of  the  widely  read  and  respected  “Astro  Bob”  blog ...". Suriname0 (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Tom Ruen, JaredDaEconomist and Suriname0. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 21:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete this article does not state the importance of its subject.--Épine (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Épine, thanks for participating in the discussion! I agree the present article has some serious shortcomings (see WP:RUBBISH), but I'm wondering what you think of the notability of the subject independent from the current article content i.e. do they meet WP:GNG? Thanks, Suriname0 (talk)


 * 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.