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. Courcelles (talk) 02:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gharlane of Eddore (pen name)[edit]

Gharlane of Eddore (pen name) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

• Delete. I've reviewed the sources, and this article is heavily dependent on the likes of Usenet, Geocities, and tabloid rag The Register for sourcing. It is my observation that this subject is not notable nor is it appropriately sourced/suitable for Wikipedia purposes. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 19:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Usenet and its sources are notable, and very famous people who are primarily notable on Usenet are notable. Gharlane was very well known within that community, and science fiction fandom writ large. Although it's not sourceably relevant here, I was around then and can personally attest to that. He was covered intermittently in at least borderline reliable off-net news sources prior to his death, and his death was reported widely. Usenet and Internet people and events from the 1980s and 90s are hard to source "well" by Wikipedia standards as so little was published in mainstream reliable sources until the late 90s. This is a known problem - and yet, we have not decided to categorically exclude Usenet and Internet people from those time periods. Quite the reverse - we've included quite a bit about them, where they were memorably notable and sources exist which are in context reliable. The Register - the particular source which triggered this - has tabloid aspects, but also has been widely used as a reliable source in areas and with articles where it did substantially or entirely fact-based reporting, as it did with Gharlane's passing. A challenge to the reliability of the particular Register article used here would be better taken up at the Reliable Sources noticeboard than AFD. JBsupreme's effort to delete Gharlane's entry here is well intentioned, but mistaken. Keep. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Just because "The Register" chooses to present itself in a tabloid-like fashion does not mean it cannot be used as a reliable source. A quick review of the nominator's edit history shows a recent pattern of challenges of citations to "The Register", and like this one there is no reason given other than "it's a tabloid." As for the notability of the subject here, that was pretty well established by the "keep" voters in this article's previous RfD. How many times will we have to go through this? Jeh (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than resort to ad hominems, why don't you explain how this subject is actually notable? Sources would be nice, too. The last time this was discussed was three years ago back in 2007, our standards for inclusion have markedly improved since then. Cheers, JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 02:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not an ad hom. I am disputing your claim that The Register is not a RS. You have offered no defense of that claim other than "it's a tabloid" in about a dozen edit summaries - which is basically just name-calling on your part. (What, because you said it, quoting it back at you as an ad hom now?) And I feel those dozen or so edits are quite relevant to this AfD. It seems to me that you are less interested in the notability of this article than you are in expunging refs to The Register from Wikipedia. And even if that does qualify as an ad hom, note what our very own Wikipedia says about that:

The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.

So... do you have any reliable sources to show that The Register is not one? If not then there is no factual basis for your AfD. Jeh (talk) 03:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - in his era, this character was quite well known within the circles he influenced. This nomination is no less unreasonable than either of the prior ones. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:02, 27 July 2010 (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.