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. Even ignoring sockpuppetry/ WP:SPA issues, the arguments offered by !keep votes do not show evidence of how WP:N is met; there is more to that than "it's notable!" Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 22:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Chuck Smith (Esperantist)

Chuck Smith (Esperantist) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

PROD removed by primary author. There is no evidence that this person meets WP:GNG. No independent sources have been produced. Guy ( Help!) 11:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• delete The mention of him in Esther Schor's book seems a reasonable independent source, and this one too [1]. However as these sources are not "about" him but only mention him in passing I think it is not enough to pass GNG. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• keep Chuck Smith is unquestionably accomplished and notable. When Wikipedia still contains lengthy articles on trivial video games, athletes of bygone days and untalented musicians, this article deserves to be retained and developed. Smith's achievements are noteworthy enough that versions of this article also exist in other languages. Please do not delete this article. Objectivesea ( talk) 10:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

You will get a better result by articulating your argument in terms of wikipedia policies. Wikipedia policy, for example, explicitly states that the existence of other articles of low quality or questionable notability is not a valid argument that an unrelated article should be kept. Notability is determined by non-trivial coverage in third party sources, so providing some of those would be a more fruitful avenue of argument. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply

• Delete This borders too close on self referential. Founders of specific language Wikipedias are not notable for such. Beyond this the mentions of him in reliable sources are not indepth enough to pass GNG. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC) reply
• keep Chuck Smith is a prominent Esperantist, named "Esperantist of the Year" I think in 2015. An entry already exists; it is not a frivolous contribution about an obscure, insignificant person in the Esperanto world. And Wikipedia is not bound by the cost of printer, ink, and the physical size of an Encyclopedia. Perhaps someone can offer more references, but by all means keep this entry. Don't be trifling. Ralfelektulo ( talk) 22:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC) — Ralfelektulo ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• keep Chuck Smith is main contributor of a Duolingo course, founder of a Wikipedia language, organizer of Polyglot Gathering. BertSchumann 01:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)— BertSchumann ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• keep Chuck Smith is an important person. He accomplished many things for the internet-side of the Esperanto speaking community. Founded Wikipedia in Esperanto, main contributer for the English-Esperanto Duolingo course etc. 143.179.83.4 ( talk) 07:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)— 143.179.83.4 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Delete GNG not met. As a side note, ridiculous sock-puppetry is not indicative of a good-faith editor. Exemplo347 ( talk) 17:26, 2 April 2017 (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.