Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Haberkern

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. postdlf (talk) 17:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Haberkern

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

Not notable. This is more a cotrack to advertise his inventions than it is a biography. Haberkern lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. the large amount of reference do not contain any depth of independent coverage about him. Most are misused, not verifying the text they follow. A shill has written their preferred text and then thrown in partly related references to fake verification and make him look good. Haberkern did not win the award claimed. This award (which is not major and one of a plethora the professional development program give out) was won by someone else, as was second and third. Haberkern got an also-ran "Award of Excellence". Deceptively source promotional biographies have no place on Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The individual definitely has substantial press coverage, such as this significant article about him in the LA Times. Should the article be rewritten? Perhaps. However, Haberkern does pass GNG. Goliathiest (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC) — Goliathiest (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That article is mostly by Haberkern, not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 22:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Duffbeerforme that the LA Times interview does not help satisfy GNG. In addition to SPA Goliathiest popping in to opine here, the article itself was mainly written by other SPAs and editors who are obviously here for promotional purposes. Logical Cowboy (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please don't make me waste any more words on this coatrack. None of these inventions are world changing (compared to say sewing machines or televisions) Op47 (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you remove all of the non-reliable sources, this page has no, absolutely no, acceptable references. As noted already in the article, many of the "references" do not even mention him. Take this away! LaMona (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2014 (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.