Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Van (third 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 no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Van

AFD tag placed on article by 66.134.219.52 (talk • contribs), who may also be Worm082 (talk • contribs). This is a technical nomination regarding which I have firm no opinion at this time. Paraphrasing the comments on Talk:Eric Van, the anon user had concerns that the subject did not WP:BIO's standards for inclusion. At previous AFDs the article was stubbed and speedily kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Van and kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Van (2nd nomination) because the subject is, like the song says, big in Japan Boston. Nice, but I'm not sure that a heartwarming human interest piece in the deepest, darkest corners of the Boston Globe is multiple, even if it is arguably non-trivial. Whatever the article has going for it, it scores well as hagiography. Some might not see that as plus point. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Afterthought: Nothing has been said to suggest the subject meets WP:BIO, and other issues have been raised, so my view would now be delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not notable, does not meet WP:BIO. "Whatever the article has going for it, it scores well as hagiography. Some might not see that as plus point." - This is because the article was written by the subject of the article (see previous edits by user emvan). Whether he's notable is questionable, whether a biography written by the subject can have a NPOV is not. Ivana Humpalot—Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.98.31 (talk • contribs)

• Delete as Red Sox Nation-cruft. I am a member of SABR and had never heard of this guy until I followed a link from Sons of Sam Horn (the Wiki article, not the site). His work intrigues me from a fan's standpoint, and he certainly seems notable in the Boston area, but is he a notable baseball authority outside of those circles? No. He's not notable in his other interests, either, and it makes the page read like a vanity. And if anyone's ready to point out this as an assertion of notability, well, many local people are profiled in newspapers every day. SliceNYC 02:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable baseball sabermetrician. -- No Guru 16:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. wikipediatrix 18:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable statistician, very notable in science fiction fandom. I'm also quite befuddled by Ivana's comments. Van didn't create the article, he's removed large chunks of non-essential information and his edits are non-controversial and constructive [1]. Nobody is disputing factual acccuracy here, so citing a POV concern (especially when Van isn't the primary author) seems like a strawman. Stilgar135 14:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• Afterthought Van is absolutely the primary author. See his edits from late February 2006 when he changed the page from a spoof to his own bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Van&diff=41438350&oldid=39762820. He later edited it to add more of the current content. It now reads like an abbreviated resume. Moreover, POV has little to do with factual accuracy; articles in The Nation or Newsmax may be factually accurate, but no one pretends they have a NPOV. Ivana Humpalot 21:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

'Response' Awesome, we're both using the same edit to try and prove different points. It looked to me like Van was removing a whole bunch of chaff and leaving in the important information. And I think you're missing my point about POV. The issue here is whether Van is notable. Your musing on whether or not someone can write an article about themselves without a POV is not germane to the debate. Stilgar135 23:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment The edits Van made violate the guidelines of WP:Autobiography. His claim to inventing "combined triple average" cannot be independently verified. "Van has privately confided that he wasn't blowing smoke here and is in fact working on a major innovative advance in sabermetrics," he writes. This is obviously unverifiable and is original research. Keep in mind that he doesn't meet any of the WP:BIO standards in the first place, and the case for deletion grows. SliceNYC 20:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

• keep please he is notable in baseball analysis and science fiction fandom Yuckfoo 17:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as notable, and note that this survived an AFD on July 17th, not even two months ago. It's a shame that articles can keep being renominated when the desired outcome is not obtained. Turnstep 21:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment The article is being renominated because Van clearly does not meet WP:BIO, something which was never mentioned in the first two AfDs. In the AfD two months ago, the focal points of the argument were that one article had been written about Van and that he was known in the Boston area. (For what it's worth, the article was in the arts section, not even the sports section.) The difference this time through the AfD process is that we are discussing actual policies and guidelines, not just vague concepts of notability. SliceNYC 21:30, 9 September 2006 (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.