Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obie Fernandez


 * 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   no consensus.  Sandstein  06:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Obie Fernandez

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

As Philosophus put it: "Borderline G11/A7 CSD. This was created by an account that has only edited articles on the article subject and Spot.us. Given the subject of this article built Spot.us, it is incredibly likely that the author is the article's subject. While there is assertion of importance (making A7 questionable), there is little evidence of real impact and no independent sources, thus causing this to fail WP:V and WP:N criteria." Chris Combs (talk) 21:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 21:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 21:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Two independent WP:RS in the article, the article is currently a stub which has little left to do with the alleged COI start, User:Philosophus who PRODed in the initial state never had any comments after I de-proded and did some minimal sourcing... And before I forget, Google News doesn't exactly turn up empty, there's a good reservoir to explore at Google scholar... Could the nominator please take a moment and explain exactly what steps he took in accordance with WP:BEFORE prior to nominating this AfD? Thanks. MLauba (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The given sources are reliable and verifiable Rirunmot (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Weak Keep Appears to be prominent within the Ruby community, that is sufficient for notability. Ray  Talk 18:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Under what Wikipedia guidelines? DreamGuy (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I am at a complete loss to figure out what the people voting Keep above think counts as multiple, independent, reliable sources cover the topic in non trivial ways. So he blogged something that someone else disagreed with, great. So he's involved in some software. We can confirm that, sure, but that's not the same as saying he's notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Not even close. DreamGuy (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Deletenot notable at this time--79.78.203.104 (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:N--AssegaiAli (talk) 09:40, 28 June 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.