Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Hoiberg

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS.

I count five deletes, two redirects, one merge, and five keeps. Noting that the Encyclopædia Britannica article already contains the whole of the information in Dale Hoiberg save for the word "sinologist", I am going to exercise my judgment as an ordinary editor and merge and redirect. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 01:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

Dale Hoiberg
This sub-stub reads, "Dale Hoiberg is a sinologist and, as of 2004, the editor-in-chief of the Encyclopædia Britannica." In this case, how is notability being established, if at all? Is Wikipedia better off with or without these types of "articles"? GRider\talk 20:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete the Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't seem to have an article on him, why should we? Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 20:51, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. We seem to have an article on his counterpart at another semi-notable encyclopedia, Jimmy Wales.   --BM 21:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Hoiberg certainly didn't found Britannica, he's just its (current?) editor-in-chief. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  21:19, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Try Larry Sanger, former editor-in-chief of Wikipedia. &mdash; Matt Crypto 13:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, just under the bar of notability - 180 Google hits. Megan1967 23:23, 22 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep editors of semi-notable encyclopedias. Kappa 02:31, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Editors of extremely influential encyclopaediae should be included! Just because they critique us doesn't mean we should forswear to write about them!
 * Unsigned by 141.225.193.124. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 01:06, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge to the Britannica. Radiant! 09:14, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Deletioncruft VFD nomination.--Centauri 12:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the Encyclopædia Britannica article. This is a prime example of a predicate nominative.  In other words, someone researching this guy probably already knows what he does.  This substub isn't much help as it is. - Lucky 6.9 02:45, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. We would not keep a business-person with equivalent responsibilities and no other evidence of notability.  Rossami (talk) 00:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. ComCat 08:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the EB article. &mdash; Matt Crypto 13:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Jayjg (talk) 17:11, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Current article is pretty useless, but almost certainly has potential. No, EB themselves don't have an article on him: this is precisely the sort of thing where their narrower criteria say no. But certainly more notable than 1/3 of what has articles in Wikipedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:31, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- Darwinek 13:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.