Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Garaventa

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 delete. Sandstein 20:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Garaventa

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiographical article written by and about the author. David Condrey ^{log talk} 22:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—Toronto Star article is an interview about his disability much more than his career; not sufficient in and of itself for notability. The Royal Society of Arts appears to be a pay-to-join organization, so that doesn't contribute towards notability. The software award is the strongest argument here, but the award itself is not widely known and the software (based on a search for reviews and checking github) is otherwise non-notable. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 06:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ceradon (talk • contribs) 08:29, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although this isn't an extremely strong article, the awards sponsored by Microsoft and the US government give it significance. The disabilities audience for software is small and mostly overlooked, so it isn't surprising that there are no mainstream publications covering this. There are some weak references as well, but I think they should be left in the article. I did reformat a few references to make their targets clearer and added more subheadings. (Although, I could also argue that the article should be about the software rather than the developer... I suspect that would be a more logical search in WP than one on the person.) LaMona (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Nowhere near enough for notability. The awards are very minor ones - the MS one seems to be a conference he presented at, or his product was presented at. I can see nothing about being a finalist in the reference. The 'US govt' one challengepost.com gives no indication it's government sponsored, but it does give out awards, several a month, most much larger than the one AccDC came third in. Nowhere near enough for notability, for this or AccDC.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.