Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Van Dyk


 * 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   speedy delete. Spartaz Humbug! 20:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert Van Dyk

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Apparent autobiography of non-notable person. Antipastor (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete – Zero GNEWS and no GHits of substance to support article.  ttonyb  (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. References are mostly self-published, as are the book and film. Fails WP:Notability and WP:Creative. WWGB (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. As the nominator, I must say I have tagged the article as an autobiography according to the creator's user name and content. But, although the article is well written, I don't see any reliable secondary sources asserting notability. Antipastor (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are numerous independent sources on this biography page including 4guysfromrolla.com, cmu.edu, and wordpress.com. Notability comes from the breadth of the references.  A reference is also made that the subject has been appointed to an official city government office/committee position, but as this is a very recent appointment an official supporting reference hasn't been posted by the city clerk.  Regarding "GHits", you need to dig a little deeper and know where to look.  Subject created pages dominate ranking because they aggregate content better than reference links.  Also, many people have this name so this complicates the search engine results. Regarding self-publishing... this is done to preserve authors rights so material can be licensed under Creative Commons. Creative Commons publication is not compatible with the DYING traditional publishing industry.  Finally, compliment about well written article is warmly accepted.  --Robert.vandyk (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Clarification on self publishing: I think WWGB's concern (and mine btw) is rather that there are no secondary sources provided as references (not that the book/movie is self-published). Antipastor (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The wordpress site is most definitely a secondary source.  I have no idea who wrote that.  Thousands of people (according to Google statistics) have viewed the film.  I believe I followed the neutrality "guidelines" and have read another story where a Wikipedia editor who uses her own name has clashed with obstinate editors.  However, reading through the Notability guidelines I think arguing that the Basic Criteria is met (which calls for a significant secondary source), I would concede.  Unless concurrence is that my "to-be-provided" source would meet this notability requirement, I will not further pursue trying to keep this article up at the present time.  However, as an alternative to deletion I would suggest a Redirect to my User page (where the information can be copied and clearly seen to be an autobiography).  Comments about precedence for this would be truly appreciated.  --Robert.vandyk (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition to the three provided references mentioned above and the 1 "to-be-provided" reference, marssociety.org is a fifth independent source linked to this biography. --Robert.vandyk (talk) 02:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. www.cs.cmu.edu is a website that merely hosts your paper with no acknowledgement of notability; wordpress.com is a blogsite, which are generally considered unreliable. I await the significance of appointment to a "Bicycle & Pedestrian Committee" (to be provided). WWGB (talk) 03:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Future plans to self-publish a novel doesn't confer notability. Upload film of one's road trip doesn't confer notability. The works don't have major media coverage (an obscure blog by the subject or subject's friends don't count), major awards, large sales, etc. --JamesAM (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lack of reliable sources, and non-notable. Skinny87 (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanity Piece, on Wikipedia? Weasel words, and WP:CRYSTALBALL violations? Cleave and smite. --WngLdr34 (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable individual creating a vanity article on themselves. Not much more to discuss really, surely? I think it is though worth clarifying to the creator of the page that notability is quite a bit more than just the individual or something they've done being mentioned once or twice on a couple of random websites. Also I'm not sure a redirect to the user page is appropriate either. --Nickhh (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Subject appears non-notable. Furthermore article has serious systemic PoV issues.  Even if it were a notable subject I'd be proposing a 100% tear-down and rewrite. Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this article's creator. Joe Chill (talk) 19:37, 5 October 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.