Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Scheurwater


 * 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 08:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Robert Scheurwater

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

Autobiography about a web designer whose only claim to notability seems to be the recipient of (what appears to me to be) a small website design award. Fails WP:BIO. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep . That's a borderline case. If the information on the article is accurate, he actually received two awards and 10 nominations for his work, so I think he may pass WP:N. On the other hand, there's a Conflict of interest since he wrote his own article, so we definitely need to check the validity of the awards / nominations.
 * Delete. Okay the "nomination" list is very misleading. You don't actually get "nominated" by these websites, you just register yourself and that counts as a "nomination". So he just registered himself ten times and put that as a list. The website that gave him the awards doesn't appear to be notable itself so in the end, he fails WP:N and of course there's still the WP:COI issue.Laurent (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  —87.252.35.195 (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Notable. In everyone's eyes a national award is a national award. Therefore he would pass WP:N in his defense writing your own article will leave the readers with more accurate information. SteveGin (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC) — SteveGin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Let's take a closer look at the award then; even if receiving the South African Web Award confers notability (which I don't believe it does by itself), these awards are given to the website, not the creator. Thus, zero evidence of notability for Mr. Scheurwater. Also, see WP:AUTO for our guideline on autobiographies. --AbsolutDan (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay lets go into detail
 * The notability was checked by an admin User:Ruslik0 when I created the article
 * I created the article the rest is up to the people if they want to edit or read.
 * Even if the award got given to the website in the DISCLAIMERS on the website it says I AM THE WEBSITE DESIGNER don't say that you have taken a closer look into it if you have NOT!!!
 * Who r u>? BTW
 * Please don't trying to vandalize or remove article them if they are notable
 * Thx RobScheurwater (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No one is vandalizing the article, we are discussing whether or not it should be deleted. This is a normal process here at Wikipedia. No one here is doubting that you created the websites in question. My opinion is simply that because it was the website that received the award, and not yourself directly, that notability is not conferred.
 * The edit you refer to by Ruslik0 was merely the removal of the speedy deletion tag. An article that claims notability, however thin a claim, cannot be deleted speedily. Nowhere that I see does he indicate his opinion on actual notability.
 * Who I am is a Wikipedia editor. That is all that is important here. But if you're asking how I came to nominate this article, I stumbled upon it while performing New Page Patrol. --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no article for the South African Web Award (and based on my failure to find any hits for it in Google news, there should be no article). This is a non-notable award that does not convey notability, and as discussed above, even if it did convey some notability it would be primarily on the web site. Google news also fails to find any hits for Scheurwater himself, so he fails WP:BIO. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Like I said notable is notable no matter what anyone says, thinks,and cares and national awards fall under notabilityWP:N. I have already send the South African Web Awards an email about this and that they should start an article on Wikipedia. I have already made a start for them they will update the winner list on Monday. Google news??? There are website confirming that I have won the awards. In write most of it myself, so that the article explains and people understand the notability BIO, so Conflict of interest is not a valid tag, because I wrote most of it myself. RobScheurwater (talk) 13:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The "failure to explain the subject's notability" section you refer to above is a suggestion to Wikipedia editors, not the subject of the article, that they should be bold and fix problems as they see them, if they can. Good point about the COI tag though; I've changed it to the more appropriate "autobiography" tag. --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unable to establish that SA Web Award is notable. The only mention it seems to get is from sites stating that they've been awarded one – no press coverage or critical commentary. The FAQ doesn't instill much confidence – just by creating an account with the site, anyone can "participate in the website review process." An award where anyone can help judge is going to struggle to be taken seriously. Couldn't find anything else that would help him meet the WP:BIO guidelines. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 14:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? thx for your opinion, but when the MTV Awards get taken place people get to vote too those votes don't count a lot. It is the same here people can register to judge (peer judge), because it only counts 10% (peer judge) of the overall mark. The panel of judges (SAWA judges) count 90%. I am not comparing the MTV awards with the SAWA, because I hope you see the similarity. Can name another Website Designing Awards besides the CLIO Awards that has media coverage. By the way i am going to the CLIO Awards 41.243.250.126 (talk) 14:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't actually give a reason for your keep. This is a discussion, not a vote. If you can provide sources that show that the awards are notable then that will help your position. You do raise an interesting point: the judging process doesn't appear to be stated anywhere: Who exactly are the SAWA judges, where is it specified that only 10% comes from signups, how exactly are these numerical ratings generated etc. It really just seems like a unprofessional operation to me. Certainly this is just my opinion. As too is the lack of notability of the awards ... unless someone can demonstrate otherwise. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * To 41.243.250.126 it is 75% (SAWA Judge) 25% (Peer Judge) and MTV is 80% Judge and 20% Voters. CREATIVE A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Take this one for example - The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. I am the creator of the King's Kids Johannesburg website with is an international youth organization I created that website and maintenance it for free because they are a NPO it gets over 450 000 (almost a half a million) hits last year. I will get more info about the SAWA awards for you ASAP ever though it is a national award. In South Africa the press doesn't come to that stuff they to freaking busy with the FIFA 2010 and the crime in South Africa. RobScheurwater (talk) 16:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - there is simply no reliable sources covering Robert Scheurwater. The web award does not rise to the level of recognition that would meet notability for wikipedia. -- Whpq (talk) 13:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't actually give a reason for your delete opinion, because you just said it is not notable even though it is a national award and according to Wikipedia national awards are notable. By the way Wikipedia is with a Capital letter. From RobScheurwater (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply. From WP:BIO, A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.  So winning a "national award" is not any guarantee of inclusion.  As for my opinion not being substantiated, the substantiation is the very opening sentence. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made at least two notable requirements:
 * i) I won 2 national awards and another one hopefully within 6 weeks.
 * ii) The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, = King's Kids Johannesburg website with is an international youth organization I created that website and maintenance it for free because they are a NPO it gets over 450 000 (almost a half a million) hits last year.
 * iii) The person is known for originating a significant new technique. = I am the President and Founder of AST which is a free copyright licensing company where people can submit their work onto a the National South African Copyright database. Which was started 2 months ago and people have already started submitting their work even though it isn't online yet. And is the first free copyright licensing company in South Africa. Which is going to be the new copyright technique in South Africa cost free. Press release will be on 1st April 2009 RobScheurwater (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply - we clearly disagree on the notability from the awards. What you might win in the future is not relevant now.  As for creating a website, I don't see how that rises to being a significant or will-known work.  Starting a copyright licensing company regardless of whether it charges fees is not really originating a new technique. -- Whpq (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * we is who? YOU you mean. I didn't say that what I might win in future. Starting a copyright licensing company regardless of whether it charges fees is not really originating a new technique. Is the new technique in South Africa I has not happened before and will be press released in April. I don't care how things work in Canada, but name five companies on national copyright database scale in Canada that does that for free. RobScheurwater (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "We" is you and me, as in you and me disagree on the awards conferment of notability. And "...and another one hopefully within 6 weeks" seems to me to be a forward looking statement.  As for the free copyright licensing company, there are many companies that work on clearing copyright.  Some like the Copyright Clearance Center are even a not for profit.  So doing it for free isn't all that different from other businesses.  It's not a new technique.  -- Whpq (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I said Canada not U.S. Whpq "...and another one hopefully within 6 weeks" yes I am looking forwards to the judges results. In South Africa it is a new technique. AST getting registered as a NPO by the end of this month, because we don't charge people for getting their work copyrighted that is why it has not been released to the press. I am trying to get this implemented in South Africa copyright companies are charging people over $250 per submitting of their work. This is a new technique in South Africa, so just accept that it is a new technique in South Africa. RobScheurwater (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way I just checked the Copyright law from U.S is different compared to the South African copyright just to let u know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobScheurwater (talk • contribs) 17:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My take on your points: (1) national award is not synonymous with notable award. No one has yet attempted to show that these awards are notable. (2) Your quote left out a significant part: "... that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." In this context, multiple independent articles would have to be written about the website itself - not just the organization (3) If this has generated you press coverage please go ahead and add the sources to the article. If not, and if the article is deleted, then just wait until you get coverage from multiple independent sources and recreate the article. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - the South African Web Awards has 12 winners for March so far. February has 25 winners, and January has 10.  These awards seem to be handed out rather freely.  -- Whpq (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL - Most web design company hand out 50 category award due to different categories and then gold, silver, bronze and merit with SAWA they have combined all the categories so it work out roughly the same. Think and do the maths RobScheurwater (talk) 05:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Vanity article created by non-notable person about himself is an example of what Wikipedia is not. This person has also created articles about A. Scheurwater Technology (his non-notable company) and South African Web Awards (the non-notable award upon which his non-notability is based). These should also be nominated for deletion.--Boston (talk) 06:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - autobiographical spam by vanity editor. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: Per WHPQ here, the only claim of notability is this non-notable award and per OM above. This author has created a vanity autobiography that is a self-promotion piece with a never-stronger COI and no decent indication of any notability.  Toddst1 (talk) 04:51, 19 March 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.