Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 28: Difference between revisions
→28 March 2014: + Akbar Golrang |
Randykitty (talk | contribs) →Akbar Golrang: cmt |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
:{{DRV links|Akbar Golrang|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akbar Golrang|article=}} |
:{{DRV links|Akbar Golrang|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akbar Golrang|article=}} |
||
I closed the original discussion as delete; the main problem with this biography was the absence of reliable sources proving Golrang's notability. Since then, an IP editor has come to my talk page asking me to restore the article so that he could add a couple of sources. I have moved the page to the draft namespace and, {{plainlinks|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AAkbar_Golrang&diff=601635859&oldid=601014012|name=in these edits}}, he actually added the sources he mentioned. These, however, are in a language I don't understand (which prevents me from ascertaining their reliability). On my talk page the IP also added that 7 books of his are in the Library of Congress ([http://www.loc.gov/search/?q=golrang&all=true&st=list]). I'm starting this drv to determine whether, in light of the new evidence, Golrang qualifies for inclusion. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 11:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC) |
I closed the original discussion as delete; the main problem with this biography was the absence of reliable sources proving Golrang's notability. Since then, an IP editor has come to my talk page asking me to restore the article so that he could add a couple of sources. I have moved the page to the draft namespace and, {{plainlinks|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Draft%3AAkbar_Golrang&diff=601635859&oldid=601014012|name=in these edits}}, he actually added the sources he mentioned. These, however, are in a language I don't understand (which prevents me from ascertaining their reliability). On my talk page the IP also added that 7 books of his are in the Library of Congress ([http://www.loc.gov/search/?q=golrang&all=true&st=list]). I'm starting this drv to determine whether, in light of the new evidence, Golrang qualifies for inclusion. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;" class="texhtml"> '''[[User:Salvio giuliano|Salvio]]'''</span> [[User talk:Salvio giuliano|<sup>Let's talk about it!</sup>]] 11:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
*'''Comment''' Based on the evidence in the draft, I'd still say there is no evidence of notability. Publishing books in itself does not make someone notable, we need evidence that they have been ''noted''... However, I have no time right now to search for book reviews or anything like that right now, so I won't !vote yet. The original closure was fine of course, but I don't think that's really an issue here. --[[User:Randykitty|Randykitty]] ([[User talk:Randykitty|talk]]) 11:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC) |
|||
====[[:AlphaCom]]==== |
====[[:AlphaCom]]==== |
||
Revision as of 11:55, 28 March 2014
I closed the original discussion as delete; the main problem with this biography was the absence of reliable sources proving Golrang's notability. Since then, an IP editor has come to my talk page asking me to restore the article so that he could add a couple of sources. I have moved the page to the draft namespace and, in these edits, he actually added the sources he mentioned. These, however, are in a language I don't understand (which prevents me from ascertaining their reliability). On my talk page the IP also added that 7 books of his are in the Library of Congress ([1]). I'm starting this drv to determine whether, in light of the new evidence, Golrang qualifies for inclusion. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Based on the evidence in the draft, I'd still say there is no evidence of notability. Publishing books in itself does not make someone notable, we need evidence that they have been noted... However, I have no time right now to search for book reviews or anything like that right now, so I won't !vote yet. The original closure was fine of course, but I don't think that's really an issue here. --Randykitty (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
I found another source providing information on AlphaCom which I believe satisfies Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources. The source is http://aplawrence.com/Security/ssh.html . The author of that article has been mentioned in TechRepublic with regards to the author's knowledge in the area of terminals: http://www.techrepublic.com/article/ap-lawrence-delivers-sco-unix-linux-information151and-lots-of-it/#. 121.99.164.96 (talk) 04:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- The biggest problem with using self-published sources is that in many instances we can't entirely guarantee that there has been any editorial oversight. That's generally the biggest issue when it comes down to it. I'd also like to mention that opening a new deletion review the same day that the previous one closed is generally not seen as a particularly good idea unless you have multiple sources to use to show notability or argue for inclusion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:19, 28 March 2014 (UTC)