Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Van (4th nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 05:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Eric Van
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Just a vanity article about a non-notable person. It has survived several nominations for deletion in the past due to support from his web forum. This man is not notable and is not "widely known" around Boston like previous defenders have stated.


 * Comment - Always interesting to see a 4th nomination. One problem is that article may be autobiographic, at least in part, but that is not a reason to delete, even if true.  Biggest problem - lack of reliable sources.  There is one very puffy profile in the Boston Globe [] - Van was a contributor to the Boston Globe at the time, so it is a bit incestuous.  The general notability guideline says that for a presumption of notability we need: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject - it seems to me that we have here somewhat significant coverage in only one reliable source, one that is not in this case demonstrably independent of the subject.  Springnuts (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Clean up - The Boston.com article about him clearly meets GNG, but I do agree that it's very much a vanity article. The article should focus on Sabermetrics, and the "Science Fiction" and "Rock Criticism" nonsense should be removed, since he has apparently done nothing notable in those fields. We also need to remove/integrate some of the external links as references, and remove the over-descriptive names. Rwiggum  (Talk /Contrib ) 14:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. On reflection, there is not enough here to keep the article as it stands. Find more RS and it just needs a good cleaning and de-puffering.  Springnuts (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (Janors) the subject does not meet WP:BIO and lacks ample reliable sources. JBsupreme (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete one nice article about a local stats obsessive in the Boston Globe does not an encyclopedic subject make. The other source is to some fan site with blog-like editorial standards per this . And that's it after 3 previous noms? That may be the most convincing evidence he's non-notable of all. All those pitched battles over notability and we're still sitting on this stinking pile? (by the way, I'm a yankees fan but must admit Sons of Sam Horn is the best fan-blog for baseball i've ever seen... but i digress).Bali ultimate (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for non-notability. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * delete - A single article int he Bston Globe is not sufficient to establish notability. I'd change my mind if tere more coverage but I found no additional reliable soruces. -- Whpq (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete If this is all the coverage out there, he's not notable Vartanza (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2009 (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.