Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwin Turney


 * 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. Black Kite 23:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Edwin Turney

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Questionable notability tag up since April, no improvements made since. Procedural nom, I have no opinion on the article. Wizardman 20:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What is a "procedural nom"? The idea of AfD is that you should nominate articles that you think should be deleted. No reason for deletion has been given by the nominator so there is no reason why this AfD should be pursued. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, I move to have the article deleted since the question of notability has not been answered. Wizardman  20:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a lot of hostility lately to AFDs as a way of having a notability discussion. Personally, I'm willing to consider a good-faith procedural nom. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. There isn't a whole lot out there about him besides the potted (commissioned?) company history (the same guy has written e.g. The Legend of Halliburton among similar titles). On the other hand, founders of major companies have frequently been kept. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. A search turns up nothing of relevance. The articles in the external links section only mention the subject in passing. If the subject was notable we should be able to find something. — BradV 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It looks like he's usually called "Ed" rather than "Edwin". This search finds more. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Three book sources have been provided in the article. Even if one of those is an AMD commissioned book it still leaves enough for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as one of the small group of founders of AMD, he;s notable--as for any similar very important company. Unjustified notability tag--better to have removed it than to sent  it to AfD. DGG (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to AMD, unless significant coverage in reliable sources -- the primary notability criterion -- are located. The best sources put forth so far are three books. You can search inside two of these books on Amazon.com. In the first, The Spirit of AMD, the word "Turney" appears on 19 pages. 11 of those pages are simply captions reading "Photo courtesy of Ed Turney". The others are the index and back matter, and four other pages (listed in the index), all of which are brief mentions or photo captions. In other words, there is no significant coverage of Turney in this book. The Making of Silicon Valley contains one reference to Turney, a passing mention in a list of AMD founders. Again, clearly not significant coverage. I can't search inside Inside Intel, but since it's not even about AMD I think it's safe to guess it doesn't have significant coverage either. Unless web searches on "Ed Turney" turn up something new, I have to say this article simply fails our notability guidelines. Jfire (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to have sufficient notability. --Stormbay (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2008 (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.