Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Knauss


 * 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. Discounting two related keep !votes, there is apparent consensus to delete. Lourdes 12:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Greg Knauss

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The subject has little to no notability. The article has 4 independent sources, and none of them talk about the subject in detail. As far as I can tell, the subject does not meet the criteria at WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 01:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 01:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 01:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 01:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep/Improve - like many articles about web people, it can be hard to find good details because they do behind the scenes work. I'll give this a shot and see if I can find sources that would support notability and if not I'm happy to change my suggestion. Jessamyn (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * So,, you found any yet? Orcaguy Talk Mon œuvre 23:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Not yet . I did a stylistic re-org of the page to better fit wikistyle and have tossed a few more things in (I think the Romantimatic angle got the most press, but there may be a few other notability angles). I have a Tu/Wed weekend so that was my plan to poke at tomorrow. Jessamyn (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, cheers. Orcaguy | Write me | Mon œuvre 12:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  06:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think Knauss meets the criteria of creating a thing (or things) that have received independent coverage (weblog book tours, Romantimatic app) and is regarded as an important figure within his field. I tried to add citations and information to that effect. Early web metadata is terrible which means it's hard to nail down the specifics of his work for Que Publishing but his work writing for MacWorld and early Atari publications is easier to note and track down. Jessamyn (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Sources and bibliography indicate sufficient notability.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:25, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG; WP:AUTHOR. App developer, text book contributor (for instance, "Using Netscape 2" authors are Mark Robbin Brown, Steven Forrest Burnett, et al. - I see no Krauss), non notable. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes this is part of the problem. The metadata for the early books to which he contributed chapters are terrible and the publishers no longer exist. I appreciate that "they were big deals at the time" isn't really a reason to hit GNG, but it falls into the timehole that is before (many) newspapers had content available digitally, but after newspapers would allow scanned content online. I'll see if I can fine better citations about his contributions. Jessamyn (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Per Jessamyn. Article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 03:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Most of the citations (and there aren't that many) are just in reference to his own work, with him replying to journalist's questions about them, which is routine. There's no profile or reference dedicated to who he is, so it fails WP:GNG. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete This one is tough. Objectively, it doesn't feel like a Wikipedia article, but a resume of (admittedly fun!) personal and work projects. Some items got a little press or are attached to sites or books or people who do meet WP:GNG, but that applies to many people's resumes who don't meet WP:GNG overall. Dgpop (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2021 (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.