Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Frenay

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, defaults to Keep. NawlinWiki 17:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Frenay

Robert Frenay (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

With respect to the "under construction" tag, this article hasn't been edited in nearly three weeks, doesn't assert the notability of the subject, and almost entirely consists of an absurdly long quote that is most likely a copyright violation. PC78 13:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete looks like a copyvio. OysterGuitarst 22:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep but if this AfD is closed as a "keep", I am going to cut the article to about 2 sentences. His 2006 book was published by a major publisher and had some reasonable reviews. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I began this article after attempting to do research on some of the issues mentioned in Frenay's book, blogs and articles and discovered that he didn't even have an entry on wikipedia. As a lecturer in current circulation and author of very ambitious nonfiction book about technology and the environment, I believe Frenay is notable enough to be worthy of an article here. I hope you will review the article before deleting it: I have added his birth year, removed the long quotes, added reference to the short quotes I kept, added additional notable information, etc. I also removed the under construction tag.--Markisgreen 14:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. The article will need to be cleanup up significantly to meet standards of sourcing and neutrality. It really needs to avoid peacock terms- right off the bat he's described as profound, influential, and a noted lecturer. It's got an incredibly promotional tone through and through.-Wafulz 14:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete there does not seem to be enough for notability. One possibly notable book, if DS1953 will add what he found, there might be more of a basis for judging. DGG 23:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:COI, WP:NOT, and as as noted above, non-notable. Bearian 21:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment What is the standard that makes glamour model Mel Lisboa a woman who makes her living posing for photographs notable enough to have a wikipedia article, but Robert Frenay the author of a published book challenging people to think about the environment and sustainability not notable enough? I'm just curious. There is no conflict of interest in my creation of this article. I am not Robert Frenay nor am I related to him nor have I ever met him, though I have read his book. I do not stand to profit in any financial way from sales of his book, his lectures or spreading his message. I just find his writing thoughtful and important and his career interesting and he seems quite notable to me. He seems like an important author and thinker that researchers should be able to look up on Wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Markisgreen (talk • contribs)

• The standard is generally Wikipedia:Notability (people), as well as having enough reliable sources. There's no sense in making the comparison between an author and a model/actress- if there is information present about the model, then she gets an article regardless of how she compares to a more "noble" profession.Wafulz 14:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Unlike Mel Lisboa, Robert Frenay did not pose for Playboy Brazil, a significant publication. She also has name recognition, a major criteria for notability. Tdmg 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep, there are enough google news archive results to verify the basic details of this bio, and the book appears to be notable,[1][2] and is held by a lot of libraries OCLC 61229712. John Vandenberg 04:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral - Article as it stands contains zero third party, independent sources aside from the very week "Midwest Review" source that seems to be more book summary ala Amazon than real commentary or review. That said, the Google News hits in the search above imply that a decent case for NOTE could be made, if someone were to try. Neutral for now, but if it's not fixed shortly, downgrading to delete. MrZaius^talk 05:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not satisfy the criteria of WP:BIO, a simple web-based book review and a personal website are not enough to demonstrate notability. Tdmg 18:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 04:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The content of this article has changed considerably since the AfD began, so credit to Markisgreen for putting in the effort. It looks a lot better now, and I'm inclined to give it the benefit of the doubt regarding notability, but a decent chunck of the article is still lacking any citations. PC78 02:23, 7 July 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.