Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Bolzern


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Mark Bolzern

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete, I believe this gentlemen would fall under One Event notability, I think deletion is the way to go here, however a redirect could also be an option. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * not sure how I'm supposed to edit or reply to this comment, so here goes I'm new at creating articles. The learning curve is great and I'm trying to write as quickly as possible... but a simple google search of this man will verify multiple instances and stories where he was a component of the community and the evolution of Linux.  From multiple Linux-promoting ventures to community participation.  The article will have plenty of content.gokevgo (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Everyone starts somewhere, this is what I see when I search him []. Now we have guidelines about notability and from what i can tell that linux is the only reason he is notable. When this happens we do things like condense or redirect to the group, see for example Doolittle raid, most everyone that was involved does not have a separate article. If you would care to post anything that you think I've missed I'll be happy to look at and it will help when others review this. Another thought that you may wish to review WP:RS as well! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * In the cited article (the only one I had time to add before suggestion for deletion), he's listed as number 3 to a [Linus Torvalds|Linus Torvalds] as an influencer. Maybe [Linus Torvalds|Linus Torvalds] is more of an icon than the others, but he doesn't seem to even fit the criteria of being known for more than one thing.  Should I have written more offline before trying to edit this online and paste it in? gokevgo  —Preceding undated comment added 18:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well there are two schools to thought on that. I personally would've but that's up to your discretion. Now I understand Linux is very influential so he may squeak by and so this discussion will help. Don't be discouraged, deletion review like this gives more then just one person a chance to review, I've even had a couple of mine on here too! Just keep improving it as best you can and try and show notability. Worse comes to worse it can be moved to your sandbox to incubate it a little. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 10:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)




 * Keep, tag and give a reasonable opportunity to improve sources. That IMO is the reason for tags.  Otherwise, merge to a/the relevant Linux article. Paavo273 (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep .. I'm alright with these sources, a reasonable claim to notable person in the history of Linux. -- Green  C  04:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, per Paavo273 and Green Cardomom. I added some to the article. -- do  ncr  am  22:46, 26 February 2014 (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.