Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruno Bronosky

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Golbez 07:38, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bruno Bronosky

This is user's first entry or edit. A Google search reveals three hits for Bronosky's name - one of which is a comment on an amazon.com review (not of his own publication), another of which is from his own blog. I cannot find any publications under his name, nor do I recognise it (and I'm somewhat into philosophy). jglc | t | c 22:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn. --Xcali 22:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most of Bruno's writings aren't commercially available (yet). Would this article be more acceptable if I created an archive of his public-domain works?

• It's a nice thought, but I don't think so - he hasn't achieved notoriety to the degree where people would be wondering about him and trying to learn more about him on wikipedia. When and if he achieves a level of academic notability to warrant his works being considered substantial, he belongs here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.126.231.163 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Think of it this way: I can write as many papers as I want, and put them in the public domain. Until they are accepted, however, with some level of academic accolade (or perhaps notoriety), they are in no way different than the writings of any other student. jglc | t | c 22:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So one needs to publish works commercially to be accepted and/or relevant? Need I remind you that this very wiki is noncommercial and open-source? Sometimes the most pertinent gems of wisdom are noncommercial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.126.231.163 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • He doesn't have to be published. He has to become well-known; not even well-known by a strict standard, but certainly more well-known than not at all. jglc | t | c 22:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • One needs to do something notable in order to be notable. He hasn't. Delete. Ben-w 00:40, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable. JamesBurns 03:15, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete -- doesn't appear to be notable. (A comment on the conversation above: It's not the role of Wikipedia to inform the public about what should be deemed relevant -- indeed, such an approach would be a clear violation of the NPOV policy -- but rather to report what is already considered to be relevant or noteworthy. Furthermore, if Bronosky is already notable and deserving of an article of his own, the article certainly doesn't tell us why. Neither does Google; searching for '"Bruno Bronosky" philosopher' yields a total of zero hits; replace 'philosopher' with 'philosophy', and you get a single hit, to an audio Bible... where someone named Bruno Bronosky is not an author but a random internet reviewer. Of course, Google isn't necessarily the best research tool for something like this, so maybe he is notable... but until he is shown to be, I'm going to have to vote for deletion here, and I'd imagine the same goes for most of us here.) -- Captain Disdain 20:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.