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 Snowball Keep. Tawker 16:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Levin

[edit]

First nomination (2 January 2006)

Fails WP:BIO. Google test inconclusive, varied results. (The majority of the hits are his calls to help Freenode). WP does not have an article on the creator of DALnet, Dalvenjah, nor the original admin of EFnet, Greg Lindahl. Those networks have at times been much more popular (and are much more legendary in the IRC business) than Freenode. There is no reason to consider it as anything else. While Freenode more closely pushes its discussion topics toward GNU ideas and open-source software (including Wikimedia's IRC channels), it is still an IRC network like DALnet and EFnet are. It isn't notable enough to warrant anything other than an article about the network itself (which we have).

Page was a redirect to Peer-Directed Projects Center for a lengthy time, and the only reason for its resurrection into a non-WP:BIO article was his death. It has been resurrected several times in spite of the previous AfD, and the example containing the consensus of most editors for their reasoning is this:

Revision as of 09:42, 17 September 2006 (edit)

Stesch (Talk | contribs)
(Restoring page. There are currently many links pointing to this due to his recent death. Have a little respect, please.)

[1]

In the previous AfD debate, Rob himself told Ta bu shi da yu that an article about him wasn't notable. (The consensus of that Afd was delete.)

Links to the page are minimal and fixable. --JStalk 23:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice to participants: It has come to my attention that User:Stevenkaye created a page on Greg after I submitted this AfD. --JStalk 00:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh a redirect is fine with me, by the way. --W.marsh 23:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this succeeds I'd like to see the redirect put back. But we don't really have AfR, and it is in essence a delete, so here we are. :) --JStalk 00:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
on a related topic, we need a policy to stop people from posting deletes until a month after a death. because, posting and discussing it now, seem to me to be gauche, if not entirely passe. --Buridan 00:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...unless the page was created because he died. --JStalk 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it can still wait a month without harming wikipedia at all, while allowing emotional attachments to fade. it could be argued, that doing it immediately, will only yield a biased sample of those that loved or disliked, and because of that, it shouldn't be done for a month, once people have gained distance.--Buridan 00:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field.
Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events. —Pengo talk · contribs 02:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The death of each individual soldier is not given an article, Rob Levin's was. njaard 05:13, 18 September 2006 (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.
More