Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Robinett


 * 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 02:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Paul Robinett

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

Has been deleted twice before at AfD. Not notable and although his name has been mentioned in articles on the BBC and The Washington Post sites, these mentions have been very minor and should not have his own article on Wikipedia because of this. TwentiethApril1986  (want to talk?)  04:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete--I also fail to see any real value in this article, and real notability in this personality. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 04:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a gossip column. I also can't find evidence of notability. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Being the subject of independent reliable sources and passing WP:BIO is evidence of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it fails WP:BIO. "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." He certenly isn't "Worthy of notice" or "significant", "interesting or unusal enough to derseve attention or to be recorded". TwentiethApril1986   (want to talk?)  13:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're completely ignoring the Basic criteria of WP:BIO guideline which states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". Your personal opinion that the topic isn't "Worthy of notice" is just that - your personal opinion.  Wikipedia has established guidelines to eliminate personal opinions on inclusion and that is the topic being the subject of independent secondary sources, which this topic is. --Oakshade (talk) 13:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Has been the subject of independent reliable sources like The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and others which are beyond the scope of "mention" (which the nom conveniently fails to mention), the core criteria of WP:BIO and WP:NOTABILITY.  The nom also fails to mention that the last deletion was overturned in DRV and the subsequent AfD resulted in a unanimous "KEEP" .  --Oakshade (talk) 13:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because he had a minor mention in The NY Times and The Wall Street Journal, it doesn't mean he should have a whole Wikipedia article created for him. As for the deletion being overturned, consensus can change. TwentiethApril1986  (want to talk?)
 * The material on this person is more than "minor." WP:BIO states in that the "Basic criteria" for notability is "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,and independent of the subject." This topic easily passes WP:BIO. --Oakshade (talk) 13:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. X MarX the Spot (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a borderline case, but I think there are enough sources here that the subject passes WP:BIO. Amazinglarry (talk) 20:56, 14 October 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.