Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Boerebach (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. postdlf (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Boerebach

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 3. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any reliable sources which would back the claims of notability outside of the Rockwiz stuff. Lovetinkle (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established outside his connection to Rockwiz. LibStar (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So he finally received national recognition through Rockwiz? We have a well-sourced article on a blind savant, a victim of Asbergers, whose deeds have been reported in multiple reliable sources. Sourcing appears to meet WP:GNG, and the many articles about the man and his accomplishments show his being worthy enough of note for Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please see the sources in the article and the ones that were mentioned in the DRV for this article. He has received significant coverage from many independent, reliable sources. Although the majority of the coverage is related to Rockwiz, not all of it is. He clearly has the coverage to pass the general notability guideline and has also received coverage for more than one event, so WP:BLP1E (I think that's what the delete votes were claiming) does not apply. Jenks24 (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Jenks24. I'm not sure WP:ONEEVENT is really geared to this particular case, as my reading of it suggests to me that the primary purpose is to avoid creating articles about people who are only known by virtue of involvement in a notable event. In this case, if one assumes that the "event" is the subject's appearance on Rockwiz, I would suggest that the "event" itself made the press only because the challenges Boerebach faces in daily life and his efforts to overcome them--few, if any, who have appeared on the show have been interviewed so extensively on TV and radio, or had similar coverage in regional or national press. I am swayed by the extent of the coverage about the subject, and that the documentary made about him is making the rounds now of film festivals. Between the documentary, the number of interviews and article about him and his journey to the Rockwiz show, and the local coverage in his home town and the ZDNet article on his net radio program, both of which occurred prior to his involvement in Rockwiz, I believe he meets, if narrowly, provisions established in the GNG. In way of disclosure, I was involved in rewriting this just prior to the last AFD. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 17:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Nuujinn –SJ + 18:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons as last time. This is a guy who appeared on one not-very-notable game show and... well, that's it. Really, that's all. It's not a BLP1E because that generally implies being notable for one event, but being on "Rockwiz" doesn't rise to that level. This is a BLP0E. Even if we did away with our "encyclopedia" goal and decided to be a game-show contestant directory, there are tens of thousands of more notable contestants on important shows before we'd get around to listing everyone who's been on "Rockwiz". In addition, the subject, for whatever reason, seems desperate to self-promote by having an article, and I have serious concerns that COI/SPAM issues will arise if this is kept. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. So basically what you're saying is that, even though this guys easily meets the general notability guideline and is notable per Wikipedia's definition of notability (ie significant coverage in multiple, reliable, independent sources, and for more than one event), because you think there are other more notable game show contestants and because the subject wants an article on himself, we should ignore Wikipedia's guidelines and delete the article? Jenks24 (talk) 07:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not at all. What I'm saying is that this is a person who has essentially no notability at all and is completely out of scope for an encyclopedia, and would be so even if we were a game-show-contestant encyclopedia, which we are not. I'm also absolutely not nearly as impressed by the supposed "coverage" as you are, but I acknowledge that the primary issue here is one of notability and SPAM, and not necessarily verifiability. You are entitled to your own !vote, which you've already had. Please don't attempt to misrepresent mine. Thanks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ok, thanks for the response. On re-reading my comment, I guess I can see where you can see that I was trying to misrepresent you, but let me please assure that was not what I was attempting to do; I was honestly a bit confused by your delete !vote and was trying to seek clarification (though my bias in thinking the article should be kept obviously came through). I guess we will have to agree to disagree about the scope of Wikipedia and Boerbach's notability. I think he passes the GNG, is not subject to BLP1E and therefore is within Wikipedia's scope whether we want it to be or not. In regards to the spam issue, I do understand your reservations there, but Nuujinn and myself both have the article watchlisted and will continue to do after the AfD (if it is kept) and both of us will try to maintain the article in a neutral, enyclopedic tone. I don't know if that gives you any confidence in believing the article will remain free of spam, but I hope it might. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, if he is not subject to BLP1E, I'm not sure what the objection would be. He's clearly had significant coverage in reliable sources, I think because he is a remarkable person by virtue of being a savant. Savants are an interesting topic, so it's not surprising that there is coverage of him. It's true that the bulk of the coverage is related to his appearance on the show, and normally a contestant on such a show would not be notable--and a reflection of that is that most such contestants do not wind up receiving attention at a national level in the press. I believe it is the combination of 1) a savant who operates an internet radio station who's 2) appeared on a popular game show about music, who has also 3) had that experience documented by an independent film maker that creates the interest that led to the coverage. Also, I personally do not believe that the current version of the article is very spammy, but if anyone wants to trim it back to improve it, please do not hesitate. If the concern is that the subject of the article might try to push a point of view of use WP as a promotional tool, I would suggest that he's acting in a conservative mode now, and let's assume good faith and deal with such problems if they arise. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see where those who vote to delete are coming from, where a contestant appearing on a quiz show does not count for notability, however I feel the main thing all these votes fail to recognize is the subjects ability for chart knowledge, and the press articles, including ZDNet, which were published way before the subjects appearance on Rockwiz. With this in consideration, it is evident that the subject is notable outside of Rockwiz. KatCassidy (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per katcassidy. This person meets MUSIC and SINGER guidelines.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2011 (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.