Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rupert Hoogewerf (2nd nomination)

Rupert Hoogewerf

Procedural listing for user:EBY3221, who was having trouble listing the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*delete Has this just been recreated? This is listed right next to a closed AFD for the same article, where the result was Speedy Delete. If it has been recreated, then salting might be appropriate. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Scrub that - looks like AFD nomination was going a bit awry and I was a bit premature. (Insert humerous observation here). StephenBuxton (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is notable - found these sources: [1], [2] &[3]. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found the same sources but then realized that 2 were published in 2003 - before the 2006 Speedy Deletion. Reading those both, they seem like uncited articles about the firing of Hoogewarf from Forbes. The third one appears to be a blurb about the annual Hurun Report, of which Hoogewarf is the editor. Although the publication may meet notability for a separate article (haven't researched enough to be sure), would then recommend the editor be a subheading of that article and not the other way around. EBY3221 17:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC) Egads, I forgot to add my original objections: the article seems to be an autobiography or a vanity piece, it's uncited, and I could not find enough objective references to feed a Wikifying rewrite.EBY3221 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I find it very difficult to understand EBY3221's reasoning. Why should the fact that the sources linked above were published in 2003, or that they were "uncited", invalidate them? Their existence shows that this a notable subject whenever they were published and whether or not they have been cited in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was unclear. My reasoning wasn't that the previous speedy deletion invalidated the cites, or that they weren't named before. Sorry. What I meant to say was this - I found the same 3 cites on the subject as StephenBuxton. 2 are 5 years old, not from mainstream English sources, and are primarily concerned with discussing the firing of the subject from his previous position at Forbes. The other is not an article but a stub about a publication in which the subject was listed as the Editor. This isn't a lot, when compiling the notability of person. Which is why I voted the way I did. EBY3221 (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]