Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barney Pell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Justin chat 18:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barney Pell

Barney Pell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Contested speedy, then prod. Fails WP:N and WP:PROF. Only primary sources provided. Google hits lead either to this article, his own sites, or to sites which list press releases and speaking engagements and such. No independent reliable sources found. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. There are plenty of 3rd party sources for Barney Pell. There is a PC Worldarticle from 2007 talking about Powerset Inc. (Barney Pell's company) to develop a search engine in tandem with Xerox that would rival Google, and it quotes Pell heavily throughout the article. That alone should justify this article. Another article at CNet News talks about the impending release in September of the Powerset AI search (although that second link is a blog, it is a blog for a respected news service which satisfies WP:V. The San Francisco Chronicle had its own article that mentions Barney Pell and Powerset's search engine. The Guardian quoted Barney Pell in an article, and the New York Times mentioned him in a blog... Do you really need more sources to show notability? As I'd said on the discussion page for this article, I'm working on getting these sources in the article, but I haven't had time to get to it yet. -- Atamachat 21:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • These sources should have been provided up front, so we wouldn't have had to go through this whole process. Why weren't they? If you had time to provide the primary source links, you had time to provide these as well, especially after you'd been notified. I waited a couple of days after the PROD was removed to nominate this for AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • What are you talking about? I didn't provide any "primary source links", I haven't even edited this article before except to deprod it after I did a search and found a fair number of articles about Powerset, and to leave a note on the discussion page that I was going to integrate some references into the article. I think you have me confused with someone else. Oh, to the others below, I don't mind moving this to Powerset either because those sources are admittedly more about the company than Barney, though he is mentioned and/or quoted in all of them. -- Atamachat 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to PowerSet and rewrite as about company. Sources indicate WP:CORP is more easily passed than WP:BIO. That said, Atama did request more time and you only gave xer three days. --Dhartung | Talk 21:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Move to PowerSet (corporation) per Dhartung. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Having pondered the matter and Dhartung's vote, I'm leaning toward Move myself. However, it would need some rewriting to make the point of view as that of the company and not of Pell. Personally, I still think PowerSet is more hype than substance right now, but it has enough independent coverage to pass WP:CORP pretty easily. (Frankly, I'm surprised the company doesn't have an article by now, and the logs don't show any deletions I can find.) If User:Atama is agreeable to this, well go ahead and do it and do a non-admin close of this AfD. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm in total agreement with moving everything to a PowerSet article. -- Atamachat 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Then let's do it. I officially withdraw the nomination. Someone can close this now (I would if I knew the procedure). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:40, 26 February 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.