Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Cederholm


 * 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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 06:56Z 

Dan Cederholm

 * — (View AfD)

Found while clearing out CAT:CSD. Deletion reason was -- not notable. This is not a valid speedy deletion reason. Therefore I nominated this to afd. Opinions on what to do with this? No Stance —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep He's widely known in the web development community, and has written several books and contributed to the web standards movement. The article is rather sparse, but that's better than having fluff in it instead. Jordan 19:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Whisp e ring 01:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Seems plenty of semi-reliable sources attesting to notability. However, all those links are external and don't have a Wiki article. I always find in-line external links smack of spam, but they are easily fixable I suppose. Bubba hotep 13:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Cbrown1023 23:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup. A quick search reveals hits and at least 3 books that he has written.  Someone who isn't me should cite them and clean it up :) --jaydj 00:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No independent reviews to show his books are important. No independent sources to show he is well known. The attestations of an editor are not sufficinet to show notability. Edison 14:44, 20 December 2006 (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.