Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard A. Fineberg


 * 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. The nominator notes that the article fails GNG. E.M. Gregory brings two sources. Based on those sources, two keep !votes arise and one person strikes their delete !vote. This indicates that 3 individuals agreed that the sources establish notability. There is no explenation why these sources would not count as RS, and as such, closing as keep. (non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Richard A. Fineberg

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. No sources in article, and I couldn't find any usable ones in a search. Marquardtika (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I cant find any sources to support this either. Mccapra (talk) 03:43, 7 July 2019 (UTC) based on the sources found and inserted I no longer think this article needs to be deleted but don’t feel the sourcing is strong enough for me to switch to an a ‘keep’ vote either. Mccapra (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Created 12 years ago and this is the best it now is? MaskedSinger (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Article may be notable man in need of an editor. He was more active a decade and more ago. GBooks search on Richear Fineberg oil:, Richard Fineberg Alaska . E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per sources brought to light by E.M. Gregory. The editors who argue delete appear to believe that notability depends on the whims of one particular day's incidental Google search within the past X number of years, or that we're here to be a popularity contest instead of a collaborative information resource.  At any rate, the excuse "I couldn't find any sources" offered by both was shown for what it really is by E.M. Gregory.  While I don't have time right now to examine all the sources, the ones I saw indicate that he's been cited as an expert on energy policy for nearly half a century. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  23:07, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's unfortunate the only detailed personal biography appears to be his own website, but I have to agree with here: the source searches don't seem to have been very careful. This book on Alaskan politics (published by an imprint of University of Nebraska Press) describes Fineberg as "one of Alaska's most diligent oil industry watchdogs". This publication by Congress confirms that he has worked as a senior state and federal government advisor in various capacities. I can find half a dozen instances where he's been cited as an authority in Congress just from a cursory search—in fact the earliest citations go back to his PhD work in 1968 (p. 1442). That seems like a very long record of wide citation as an authority.  "It's been here for 12 years and it's still bad" is explicitly not a valid argument for deletion; see WP:NOEFFORT. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 14:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC) — Further research turns up an article  about him in The Province from 2009, so that makes at least two independent bios (this article and the Congress one). —Nizolan (talk · c.) 14:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As such a Wikipedia expert Nizolan you would be aware that WP:NOEFFORT is not actually Wikipedia's policy. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi I am not claiming to be an expert and I am not claiming NOEFFORT is a policy; I am just pointing you to an essay that explains why it is an invalid argument. AfD is a process for deciding whether an article can and should be included on Wikipedia, not for general comments on the quality of an article. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 14:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Article fails WP:GNG - adding anything else would be window dressing. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to explain that rather than asserting it. (GNG isn't a policy either, by the way.) —Nizolan (talk · c.) 14:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have now added three sources to the article and rewritten it to reflect them. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 15:13, 15 July 2019 (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.