Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiram Boardman Conibear

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 speedy keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiram Boardman Conibear

This gentleman does not warrant an article on Wikiepida just because he was the rowing coach of a college team 100 years ago. This is an encyclopedia, not an antiquarian society. Note to author: not everyone mentioned in the New York Times three generations ago gets to have a Wiki-article! Torkmann (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep of course, I would like to introduce everyone to my wikistalker, his name is Torkmann. Can anyone other than Torkmann look at the stub article and see a clue as to what may hint that this person is encyclopedic? Please also note my wikistalker has nominated Suffrage hike and Richard H. Sylvester and Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia Chiefs. This all appears to be retaliation for removing unreferenced material he added to the article on Richard H. Sylvester, even though I did the research for references to his additions my self and added the information to third degree (interrogation). --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I mean keep - yes if one checks the external link section a stunning bit should pop which leads to -- "He developed a distinctive style known as the American stroke (also called the Washington stroke and the Conibear stroke) that revolutionized college rowing and had an effect on the sport that lasted for 30 years.". So um, yea, notable and source-able. -- Banjeboi 16:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and improve. A few seconds searching on Google would have revealed that this man undoubtedly surpasses WP:N. He has significant coverage in nontrivial sources both online and in print, and is credited with an important development that revolutionised his chosen discipline. The article is a poor stub at the moment, but potential sources are numerous and easily accessible. No rationale at all for deletion. Ka renjc 16:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good enough for Britannica, good enough for Wikipedia. Satisfies WP:BIO. As for the nominator, ixnay on the alkingstay. Edison (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:Torkmann is a new user who has literally spent the majority of his edits starting AfD's against articles created by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). APL (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article meets WP:RS and WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SNOW KEEP. Torkmann is making disruptive nominations. For pities sake, this guy is in Encyclopedia Britannica. Fences&Windows 22:19, 31 July 2009 (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.