Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Walter

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 Keep. Improper nomination. Go elsewhere to acquire discussion of this kind (examples: talk pages and RfC. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Walter

Chris Walter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I created this article, but I'm unsure about genuine notability. I'm taking it to AfD for consensus. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 01:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep Yes it is notable. It requires some clean-up though.--RyRy5 talk 01:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment This was prematurely closed by SynergeticMaggot (talk · contribs) who argued, "Improper nomination. See reasons for deletion. This is not the proper venue for your concerns," and cited WP:SK. Taking into consideration criterion #1, and good faith for both SyntheticMaggot and HisSpaceResearch, I think the least harm is done by allowing a fuller discussion of the subject's notability. In particular, SyntheticMaggot has not proposed an alternate route for HisSpaceResearch to open up the subject's notability to consensus. I don't believe there is a more appropriate venue than AFD and an early closure just begs for an even more process-oriented meta-discussion at DRV which would likely be turned back to AFD in the end regardless. So let's just wait for a real consensus here in the interests of expediency and simplicity. --Dhartung | Talk 04:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I still feel this needs to be closed. The article is sourced and appears at least semi-notable. A request for comment or request for good article, or something similar would have been more appropriate. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, I didn't cite speedy keep (that was the result). I cited policy, more precisely reasons for deletion, as the nomination contains no reason to delete. Cheers. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I think an implicit rationale for deletion on notability grounds exists, and given HSR's contribution history I'm willing to take that on good faith as the intent. The DP "reason to delete" requirement is there because many times nominations that do not have a rationale grounded in policy are merely disruptive, e.g. "George W. Bush, who likes him anyway?" or at best may be mistaken about Wikipedia processes (e.g. someone escalating their own article to AFD after a PROD). In this case, we don't exactly have a notability noticeboard, so opening a discussion at AFD -- the next best thing -- seems appropriate. Discussion is good, process is (if taken as an end in itself) bad. There's no harm in letting two or three more people chime in that the article is clearly compliant, and either way WP:CONSENSUS is served. Cheers! --Dhartung | Talk 05:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Bio NB and RfC are two places I would have rather taken this. Just because the nom did it in good faith doesn't mean this is the right place to address his concerns. If I don't see a reason to delete from either you, or the nom, I'm closing it again. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Comment At this point there has been enough input that I feel consensus is satisfied, so I have no objections to a speedy close. --Dhartung | Talk 21:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems notable and if reliable sourcing can back up publication claims then notability would be unquestionable. - Dravecky (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The claims seem to hold up; I added a news story about an exhibit of his photos at Red Rocks. There's probably enough opinion here now for a speedy close, while still satisfying the nominator's desire for a second opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. If the nom is withdrawn, then it can be a speedy keep, and all is well. Ty 07:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I certainly don't see why this should be speedily closed. Before the fifth reference was added, the article had no multiple, reliable non-trivial published secondary sources cited. But since that reference was added, I'm more convinced of genuine notability. I feel in these borderline cases, AfD can be appropriate place to take the article.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Speedy close" is simply the term for an AfD, when there are only keeps and the nom withdraws. You wanted feedback and that's been provided. It would seem to be a bit indulgent to keep it running further. Ty 12:49, 30 March 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.