Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elf Sternberg (2nd nomination)

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elf Sternberg

Suggesting deletion because the article fails WP:BLP due to a complete lack of reliable and independent sources about the subject. A cursory Google search reveals an unimpressive 380 unique hits, [1] which is relatively low for an internet personality of sorts.

Note that this same article was nominated for deletion approximately 2 years ago, and that our standards for biographies of living subjects have substantially improved since. Burntsauce 21:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There seems to have been consensus that usenet notability is an acceptable justification; unless that consensus has changed, Elf still classifies as notable. Unfortunately, many people nowadays are unaware of usenet, and are totally unaware of the impact it had as the centralized form of communication in the pre-web days; going so far as to call it a chat board or BBS or the like. "Notability isn't temporary", even if it's via a medium that's wholly forgotten about these days. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The consensus for biographies is at WP:BIO, not whatever you dream it up to be. I have no problem with a Usenet person or any other as long as the material we provide is based upon reliable sources. Burntsauce 22:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It featured in depth in this CNN story and is quoted in other reliable secondary sources [2] [3] --Oakshade 21:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  Delete Your source 1 is reliable, but does not establish any sort of notability, not all people quoted in a news article are noteworthy. For example, we don't have an article on Sara, Marv, Matt or Chad Peiken who are also mentioned in this article, nor Eileen Kent, who was then in charge of Playboy's cyber-presence. We do have one for J. James Exon who was a notable politician, the only such notable personage quoted within the article.

  Your source 2 is a throwaway mention, and is not significant enough coverage per our typical standards.

  Your source 3 is a non reliable partisan political blog.

  I'd say your doing more to establish a trend to delete than reinforce his notability. Lets face it, the guy's fanfic with kzinti is better known than he is.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  Elf Sternberg is covered in this article as an authority of sex and the internet, as is J. James Exon, the Pieiken family is not. Just because other persons written about from a reliable source don't have Wikipeida articles about them doesn't negate the in depth coverage Elf Sternberg received by that source.

  As for sources 2 and 3, are you bringing a straw man argument to this? They were never claimed to be more than quotes by Elf Sternberg. The point is that reliable sources found Elf Sternberg notable enough to quote him. (By the way, what you claim is a "non reliable partisan political blog" is in fact an article by the very notable Geoff Metcalf.) --Oakshade 23:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  The Pieken family is given equal coverage in the article as is Sternberg, I'm saying this because it shows nothing to prove his notability. This is not a straw man argument (you need to go read what a straw man is) this is simply a policy based commentary on the value of the sources quoted. Provide a decent source! Find me a good source, i'll have no problem keeping it. Whats been provided to date simply isnt good enough.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  The Straw Man point was countering your false accusation regarding the citing of sources 2 and 3. I thought that was clear. The Pieken family was given equal coverage in that CNN article, but they aren't considered authorities on sex and the internet, but Elf Sternberg was. Even with equal coverage to the Pieken family, you can't get away from the fact that's a very reliable source with in depth coverage on the person.--Oakshade 03:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, reading that article, it's clear that Elf is being presented as an internet authority, at least on a level with Playboy.com. It's not just quoting him.--SarekOfVulcan 15:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  Even if we accept the CNN source, it is one source. One source alone will not establish notability, nor is it sufficient for an article about a living person. Vassyana 17:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  One source can be enough, even per WP:BLP. Besides, this isn't a WP:BLP issue. WP:BLP is about accuracy of content and ensuring privacy to private individuals, not notability. You're attempting to assimilate WP:BLP to WP:BIO. --Oakshade 19:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  So, Vassyana, will you be filing an AfD on Kibo shortly?--SarekOfVulcan 21:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  Don't provoke him. They've tried that. --Kizor 23:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  ...and this AfD makes about as much sense as that one. --SarekOfVulcan 01:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - very notable internet personality pre-web, which unfortunately does not lend itself well to documentation. While I look for WP:RSs, here's a forum link from 2005 that shows that he was considered notable for his output: http://www.planetfurry.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5226 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) 00:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • He also popularized the hanky code on the net: Sexuality.org, West Virginians Exploring and Learning Together SM, and HalfBakery.com link to his list as being apparently authoritative, for example.--SarekOfVulcan 00:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It also came up in a random comment at Ain't It Cool News in 2000, calling Elf an "adult fiction maven".--SarekOfVulcan 01:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • A set of pages on hypertext writing style from the Berlin Technical University used Elf as a random example in 1998.--SarekOfVulcan 12:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Only a single one of these even appears to be a reliable source. The one that does potentially appear reliable, the hypertext writing guide, is not a university publication, but rather the personal website of an individual. It additionally makes no assertion of notability. At best, we could infer that Sternberg is popular in some internet circles, which still falls far short, even if we were to forget it's a personal website and not a reliable source. Vassyana 17:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • He was also listed on the "Net.Legends FAQ", "those net.phenomena that one hears about in passing, and (due to the collective memory of the Net being about one week, maximum) wishes one had more information about" -- last updated 1994.--SarekOfVulcan 15:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • That is not a reliable source. Additionally, it also marks nutters and contributors with "cool" signatures as "legends". This is hardly convincing material. Vassyana 18:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
      • The Net.Legends FAQ is a reliable source and key primary source document for Usenet history. Rejecting it in this manner is indicative of unfamiliarity with the subject and research material - it is legit, and needs to be treated as such. Georgewilliamherbert 21:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Vassyana, please note that the Net.Legends FAQ is used as a reference in Joel Furr's, Rich Rosen's, and Gharlane of Eddore's articles too. If you're going to challenge it, please be consistent.--SarekOfVulcan 03:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep as Sternberg was definitely profiled in various internet magazines and books in the 1990s, and notability is permanent. I would hold out for those sources to be dug up. He was never a "web" personality, though, and measuring him by that standard is probably mistaken. --Dhartung | Talk 00:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• keep per Dhartung, notable presence on pre-web usenet, expect WP:RS will take some tracking down, but don't doubt they can be found to document notability. Pete.Hurd 08:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The previous AfD was over two years ago. There has been plenty of time to find sources. Two years without appropriate sourcing or proof of notability is more than enough for any topic. Particularly since this is a living person, the article should be deleted. If reliable sources are found at a later date, the article can be undeleted. Vassyana 17:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per SarekOfVulcan. --Marcus-e 11:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Extremely well-known on the net in the days when Usenet was the thing... I'm not in an appropriate place to search for references right now, given the subject of his fame, though. Pinball22 13:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is a perfect example of everything that is broken about the VfD/AfD process, and is why I have pretty much limited my efforts to the better-travelled (and "defended") portions of Wikipedia for the last couple of years (I can at least be confident that any soccer article I write or edit won't get casually obliterated while I'm not looking). To people whose memories of internet culture reach back to bang-path addressing and UUCP, the very idea that an article on Elf Sternberg would get nominated for deletion in an (internet!) encyclopedia which includes articles on internet history and culture (as opposed to, say, baseball-reference.com) is a gob-smacking absurdity of the highest order. This is the sort of thing that causes knowledgeable experts in various "edge of Wikipedia" fields (webcomics, science fiction fandom and history, internet culture, etc.) to throw their hands up and walk away from Wikipedia entirely. Using AfD for OR, spam, and freshly-minted micro-cruft is necessary and desirable; using AfD on articles which have been part of Wikipedia for years, and which have already been found sufficiently notable in the past is nothing less than vandalism, and something of a violation of WP:AGF towards anyone who voted it through VfD before, or contributed to the article since. --Ray Radlein 20:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • To be entirely blunt, if they were actually knowledgeable experts, they would know where to find reliable sources. To call someone who doesn't know how to research acceptable materials in their field an "expert" is nonsense. It's one of the most basic skills a professional is expected to possess. Vassyana 17:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you mind if I store a copy of that and quote it? --Kizor 23:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Not at all. Any particular bit of it? --Ray Radlein 11:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
    • As an aside (sort of), I can think of several instances in my aforementioned "Edge of Wikipedia" fields where people who were acknowledged as experts in those fields by Wikipedia itself — i.e., folks who have well-established and non-controversial articles about them on WP which declare them to be experts on field {X} or {Y} — who have, in fact, given up on Wikipedia for exactly this thing: In attempting to weigh in on the notability of some topic within their acknowledged field of expertise, they were faced with someone demanding that they needed reliable sources to back up their opinion, despite the fact that, according to Wikipedia itself, they were reliable sources. The Reductio ad absurdam moment of that came when one such expert pointed out that WP considered his own web site a reliable, cite-able source, so that if he simply went to his own web site and posted "{Z} is notable within the field of {X}," and then linked to it himself here, it would count as evidence; but coming to Wikipedia out of a sense of civic-mindedness to make the same assertion in person resulted in nothing but frustration. Result: one more knowledgeable source of information determined to never have anything to do with Wikipedia again. Modulo the specific point about "If I post it there it's okay, but not here?", I can think of at least four valuable experts in different fields who have been driven away from Wikipedia in exactly that way, by people telling them that they didn't know what they were talking about, despite the fact that according to WP itself, they did; indeed, one or two of them were so soured on the experience that they are now actively hostile to Wikipedia, and warn fellow experts in their field to avoid Wikipedia at all costs. Way to go, us! W00t! --Ray Radlein 12:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Authors are not reliable sources. Publications are reliable sources. Experts =/= reliable sources, though experts' published material ~= reliable sources. Wikipedia is founded on reporting a summary of what published reliable sources state. Wikipedia is not the place for expert authored essays on the subject. Even if they posted that information to their site, self-published sources are not usually reliable. Even if their site was considered particularly reliable, if they are the only one to make such a claim, it would probably be regarded as an extreme minority claim or an exceptional claim requiring exceptional sourcing. And again, any expert that cannot do basic research, especially in their own field, is not very much of a professional. Any expert complaining about the need for reliable sourcing is also acting quite unprofessionally. Vassyana 18:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Notability has not been established. Additionally, unless we have multiple reliable sources that can create an full encyclopedic article about this figure, this article will be reduced to a perma-stub, if it does not completely fail WP:BLP. Complaining about the "broken" nature of XfD is not a valid rationale. "It was popular on teh internet" is not a valid rationale. A bunch of unreliable sources talking about how important/cool he is/was, is not a valid rationale. If appropriate sources can be provided at a later point, recreate the article then. Until then, this subject lacks any proven notability and the article in against our living persons policy. Vassyana 06:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  This isn't at all a WP:BLP issue. WP:BLP is not a notability guideline, except to ensure the privacy of "essentially low profile" people, as WP:BLP stipulates. The core purpose of WP:BLP is to ensure accuracy of content and the privacy of living persons, not about notability. --Oakshade 19:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  WP:BLP demands a strong level of sourcing. If that level of references is not available, we should not have an article on the person. It is interrelated with notability, because the same thing is required ... multiple reliable sources. Vassyana 03:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  You're attempting to combine notability standards with WP:BLP and it's failing. In no where in WP:BLP does it say if all the content that is unsourced (as not the case with this article), the subject is not notable and the article should be deleted. WP:BLP demands strong verification of material so there is nothing slanderous, not to establish notability. That is the core function of WP:BLP. The word "notability" doesn't even appear in WP:BLP. --Oakshade 03:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  You're misunderstanding me. All I'm saying is they require the same thing. It's just an observation they have overlapping requirement. As for BLP, in relation to deletions, I suggest you give it a better reading. Regarding some of the "sources" you've added and raised, it reads: "Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Please also take a good look over WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, particularly the quote the section closes out with. WP:BIO clearly states: "Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be verifiable using reliable sources, and, if the subject is living, we must follow the policy at our policy for biographies of living people." In the absence of enough reliable sources to build an encyclopedic article, there is no foundation for keeping the article. Vassyana 04:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  I only added the CNN article that has in depth coverage of the person. And the WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material section you quoted is just that; remove contentious material. Which section that you don't like the references for is "contentious"? And that WP:BLP secion stipulates removing that specific material, not delete the entire article. Still your attempt to skew WP:BLP as if its a notability guideline just because of some similar wording with WP:BIO is not working. --Oakshade 07:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  Policy and guidelines do not exist in a vacuum. They all affect each other. Notability is little more than a requirement that we have enough reliable sources to meet the standards of other rules. The content policies and BLP are the essential context to that requirement. Regardless, WP:BIO (the notability guideline) explicitly states: "Ultimately, and most importantly, all content must be verifiable using reliable sources, and, if the subject is living, we must follow the policy at our policy for biographies of living people." The notability guideline makes it very clear that all of the content must be verifiable in reliable sources and fully compliant with BLP. Vassyana 18:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  All content is (arguably or not) "verifiable." And WP:BIO does not state anywhere that an article must be deleted if all content is not currently sourced. Some if it is in fact currently sourced. Of course it says all biographies on living persons must follow WP:BLP standards, because it's a biography on a living person! But that in no way magically makes WP:BLP a "notability" guideline. Again, you're trying to ignore the primary purpose of WP:BLP and that is to ensure accuracy of the content (particularly "contentious" content) and privacy of individuals, not notability. You seem to forget this is a discussion on the topic's notability. If you want to argue about the specific sentences in the article that you feel are not properly sourced to satisfy WP:BLP, you can do so on the article's talk page. But that has nothing to do with notability of the article topic. --Oakshade 20:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

  The living person notability guideline says it is most important that all content is verifiable using reliable sources. Certainly, the concept is very clearly stated in the notability guideline. Regardless, BLP's logical end is if we do not have enough reliable sources to create an article (which we do not, and they have not been forthcoming, for over two years) that we should simply not have the article. Also, BLP has often been raised in deletion discussions and is considered a valid concern and rationale. If you cannot understand this, there is no further point is continuing this discussion. Vassyana 00:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  You are having trouble understanding. This debate is about notability. WP:BLP is not a notability guideline. If "all content" is "not verifiable" (in this article all content is verifiable and some of it is solidly sourced), nowhere in WP:BLP does it say then the entire article must be deleted. It only means that the "contentious" unsourced content should be removed. Your Wikilawyering is becoming farcical, if not desperate. --Oakshade 01:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  And with your personal attack, I'm done participating in discussion with you. Vassyana 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  Just so you don't look hypocritical, care to strike your "sticking your foot in your mouth" personal attack at user:Georgewilliamherbert below? --Oakshade 02:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

  I have done so as a gesture of good faith, despite your continued belligerent attitude. It was certainly more rude than necessary (though far from a personal attack), so I retracted, as appropriate. Vassyana 18:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete He has had his 15-minutes of fame, but no notability per Vassyana. --Gavin Collins 16:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Standards have "improved" or standards have "changed" - not all changes are improvements. Elf Sternberg has over four hundred unique hits on Google - and 998 (at least, given the wonky nature of Google's indexing of the old dejanews archives) on groups.google.com (USENET). Keeper of multiple USENET FAQs over the years. Mentioned on CNN. Well known in the online SF community and various kink communities. Involved in an altercation (with Larry Niven) regarding fanfic and IP rights that is still talked about today. How much notability/notoriety does he need? This is ridiculous. Izzylobo — Izzylobo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • User's third edit.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • And? If you mean to say something, please be explicit. Izzylobo 00:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Vassyana. He needs enough notability so that reliable, third-party sources assert his notability, which is currently not the case. Google hits don't matter. A brief mention on a TV show once upon a time doesn't matter. Maintaining FAQs and being "well known" within online communities (but with no reliable, third-party sources to back up that claim) doesn't matter. Xihr 19:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • One of the problems is, he was most notable for writing erotica. How many erotica writers have "multiple independent reliable sources" that are findable online?--SarekOfVulcan 20:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Welcome to Wikipedia: No reliable, third-party sources, no article. You're making an argument for deletion, not against. Xihr 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Not all Usenet personalities meet notability criteria. Elf Sternberg does. Keep. DS 20:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please provide proof of notability. Vassyana 21:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Between about 1990 to 1999, before the people started confusing "the net" and "HTTP", nearly everyone online knew about him, and many read his fiction. He collected and popularized the Hanky Code, he was a maintainer and one of the original organizers of the alt.sex FAQ, which was one of the very first FAQ documents. He was an active participant of the communites in the newsgroups related to sexuality, BDSM, and polyamory, all of which reverbate in the culture of sexuality today. I agree with the poster above, that the fetishistic worship of a misguided policy demanding "reliable, third-party sources" (which is just doublespeak for "newspapers, magazines, and television", and actively discounting and sneering at original sources and 2nd party sources, is everything that is wrong with Wikipedia today. I see posters above sneering and snarking at people pointing this out, as if the policies were handed down from God, never to be questioned. Wikipedia content should be, in order, true, useful, and interesting. Insisting that it be full of footnotes to third party critical commentary newspapers, magazines, and television transcripts, while rejecting references to primary sources and to second party reports, is the sign of small minds who have nothing actaully true, useful, or interesting to contribute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkAtwood (talk • contribs) 22:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Popularity is not a valid keep rationale. Rejecting policy out of hand is not a valid keep rationale. If you have a problem with policy, raise it at the policy talkpage. This is not the appropriate place to raise your complaints. Vassyana 17:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:BIO states very clearly at the top that "it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." The user is making a valid case for common sense and an exception. --Oakshade 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per SarekOfVulcan and Ray Radlein Ergative rlt 04:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Could you please specify which points you think support a keep rationale? Vassyana 17:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment -- I've added a couple of references to the article -- are the non-LJ ones strong enough to change anyone's vote?--SarekOfVulcan 21:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • A private website, usenet archives, and a user submitted question about him about a cease and desist letter that Niven didn't even remember ... hardly reliable or noteworthy sources. Vassyana 03:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Vassyana and others. We should not be citing livejournal as a source, ever. The rest of the supposed sources are either highly trivial or flat out unreliable. RFerreira 04:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

  It's likely most people don't think CNN is unreliable.--Oakshade 07:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep - Elf's notability in Usenet was unquestioned at the time, and is well documented (in some cases by reliable sources, in some cases not). There seems to be no genuine disagreement that the sources are accurate - the claim seems to be that not enough of them are reliable by WP standards. If there were serious BLP concerns, one could challenge info on that basis, but this is a deletion debate, in which the notability of the subject and accuracy of the article are the primary concerns. There seems to be no legitimate claim that the article's inaccurate, or that Elf wasn't notable. Asking for more reliable sources when there's a plethora of evidence that he was is a shrubbery. Keep. Georgewilliamherbert 00:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not a shrubbery. It's the entire basis of content policy. Verifiability, NPOV, and no original research are all predicated on citing published reliable sources. BLP requires even more stringent sourcing than for most other articles. Notability arose out of verifiability, particularly the long-standing comment that subjects lacking published reliable sources should not have an article. Notability, in short, is little more than ensuring we have enough reliable sources to be able to meet the standards of policy. If we don't have the sources, we shouldn't have an article. It's basic policy and common sense. Vassyana 18:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • No, notability does not arise from the others; notability is a decision tool used to justify whether particular articles are worthy of inclusion. An article can be 100% sourced to reliable sources, have extensive reliable sources, and be of such trivial nature that we'd not want to bother having an article about it. And visa versa - some notable things are hard to source. In this case, Elf is notable, and generally sourced OK but not extensively by RS standards. There is one clear RS and others that are close. The article is not being argued to be a BLP violation. You're arguing to delete it, and this argument is not consistent with the actual underlying WP policy. Georgewilliamherbert 20:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I suggest you review the history of policy. Notability was explicitly an outgrowth of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and the long-standing statement in Wikipedia:Verifiability: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The intention was to provide guidance on an inclusion standard, which essentially boiled down to: "Are there enough reliable sources to meet the rules?" As for your claim that there's an article that can 100% sourced to reliable sources that won't meet notability standards, please provide a few examples that don't rely on poor sourcing, such as citing passing mentions and lacking references that directly address the subject. And no, the sourcing is not "OK". It's terrible sourcing, mostly relying on terribly unreliable references. Vassyana 00:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep A cursory Google search is not sufficient reason to delete something. The search does not, for example, include alternates like Elf M. Sternberg. Colonel Warden 17:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That's not a keep rationale. This is a discussion, not a vote. What reasons for keeping the article are you putting forward? Vassyana 18:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Your argument for deletion was primarily that notability was not proven. Things like 12,800 google hits for "Elf M. Sternberg" (the proper search term, as it's how he always signed and identified himself) are perfectly valid counterarguments for the claim that he was not notable, and thus perfectly valid keep rationales. Georgewilliamherbert 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Google hits are not considered a valid rationale, for or against, in general. They're even less valuable when compromised mostly of usenet posting. Vassyana 01:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. While the references are a bit weak, they clearly support notability. Like others have said, the material appears to be accurate and the content is not being disputed. Vegaswikian 18:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Elf Sternberg has been notable since the days when Usenet was dominant, but he's far from just a "living fossil" - he continues to write, and he's all over the blogosphere. He's also one of the most prolific authors in any field - if his work were to be issued in dead-tree form, I suspect it would approach Isaac Asimov's lifetime output. He even has his own Wiki, to help people navigate his detailed, complex, and idea-rich fictional worlds. It would be highly unfair to delete him for "not being notable enough". Acelightning 03:09, 26 September 2007 (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.