Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Wall

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. No need to permit this kind of disruption to continue. WilyD 15:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Wall

Peter Wall (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Not-notable person, fails WP:N. Article also written as an advertisement and is inappropriate in tone. Delete. Bstone (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - article makes adequate assertions of notability. I don't see the justification for this nomination, and with the persistent speedy and quality tagging of this article, my assumptions of good faith are being...stretched. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep (as article writer). For some reason, Bstone has a bee in his bonnet about this article. It clearly demonstrates its subject's notability, with around 45 separate citations. There is nothing inappropriate in its tone, and it does not come close to being an advertisement. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - I'm not impressed with Bstone's CSD tagging minutes after this article was created. Given a chance to work on the article, it has shaped up nicely. Peter Wall is definitely notable and I recommend speedy keep. --Aude (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  Comment - I have invited the nominator to give his opinion on the exact parts of WP:N that he believes this article fails on. If none are supplied, I would suggest Speedy Close if an uninvolved admin can be found to agree Fritzpoll (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - Notability and importance are entirely different notions (articulated by WP:N itself and, for example, CSD#A7). Notability on Wikipedia is not a common language meaning, but a content guideline defining a notable entity as one that has received "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Such coverage is indeed significant, and evidence thereof (currently 36 citations) has been provided. Tone issues, if any, can be rewritten. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 15:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep—The notability criteria are clearly met by the numerous published references to him quotations of his commentary; there is a wider interest in the certain historical view of Vancouver that the article provides in relation to the topic. TONY (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Notability Asserted with multiple sources. <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 15:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - as mentioned above, this developer's notability is asserted with multiple news stories and other sources. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:53, 28 May 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.