Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard J. Weibel


 * 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 (weakly). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Richard J. Weibel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. --  puddleglum  2.0  15:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. This one is tough for me. I was prepared to !vote straightforwardly to delete, until I saw this book, which looks like an RS to me (to the extent any work on magic can be an RS). There's some fairly detailed critical commentary on Weibel's "Annotated Bibliography of Conjuring Psychology" there—which made me think about WP:NAUTHOR as a criterion. This was the only source I could find where Weibel's work is discussed, however, hence my still being in the delete column. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak Keep I see that he was an authority in his field - which meets WP:ANYBIO. He authored a book: Conjuring Psychology, additionally he appears in several books: Handbook of American Popular Culture, Volume 2 p.685, Magic: A Reference Guide p.167. Also based on his appearance on the cover of [] Lightburst (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete: I'm not seeing a whole lot of coverage out there. AleatoryPonderings's source would be persuasive, if there was anything else by the way of sigcov I could see; I'm not just going to take one (NN) author's word for the subject's importance.   Ravenswing     23:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Salvio 18:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete I agree with the other weak delete reasons. One source is good, but not enough to satisfy the notability guidelines. Unfortunately, the few brief mentions he seems to have in other stuff seems like notability weak sauce. That said, I think it would be fine to delete it with the ability for it be recreated when or if another in-depth source materializes at some point. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or merge  It's borderline on guidelines; some calibration should be made that less sources from the are on-line.    IMO it's encyclopedic and should be in Wikipedia somewhere.North8000 (talk) 15:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep : Lightburst sums up my feelings. He does seem to meet WP:ANYBIO. His magazine writing seems to indicate he has importance in his field. He has brief mentions in multiple RS and [WP:BASIC]] states "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" He may pass WP:NAUTHOR, "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors." Under WP:BIO, " "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded"; I think he meets this. The article is certainly notable for being the first one where I vote "Keep" and votes "Delete" ;)    // Timothy ::  talk  21:31, 18 August 2020 (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.