Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Holcberg


 * 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 Delete. The fact that the nominator is also the original author is compelling, and the "keep" arguments are of a general nature and not specific to this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

David Holcberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I created this article some 3 years ago when I was new here, and before I even knew that there was such a thing as notability criteria. I'm older and wiser now, and I don't think this person qualifies as notable under WP:BIO. Specifically, I can't find any independent reliable sources about the man. A google news search reveal plenty of articles by him, but I can't find anything about him (other than bios on websites that publish his writings). Yilloslime T C  05:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ( X! ·  talk )  · @190  · 03:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've never seen a nomination like this before. What an interesting situation. Shadowjams (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - It is not necessary for entities to always meet the General Notability Guideline. In this case, WP:CREATIVE, particularly item 1, might be more appropriate: A journalist heavily cited (published) by other journalists (=editors of important newspapers). I hold no opinion as to the outcome of this discussion, though. --Pgallert (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. His notability isn't huge, but having an article about him doesn't seem unreasonable in the context of a lot of the absolute and unambiguous unsupported BLP crap that survives here. Not someone I'd go to the mat over. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: I tend to agree with QM. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But don't all articles--and especially BLPs--require independent, reliable sources? Yilloslime T C  16:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 *  Delete Fails WP:BIO and, perhaps more importantly, WP:V. TheJazzDalek (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  —TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2010 (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.