Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Solgaard

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 no consensus. Low participation (non-admin closure) Nordic Nightfury 10:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Solgaard

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

I removed the G11 speedy of Domdeparis (ping) because I think it is not purely promotional and A7 is at best a gray line ($1m in crowdfunding is something, and there is an award). This being said, I see no claim of notability for Lifepack, and if Interlock is notable (dubious) the biography still needs to go - it is the lock, not the inventor, that is notable. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi Tigraan the trouble is that the claim is not true it is at 613 917$ which I agree is a lot too but the tone is highly promotional. Domdeparis (talk) 15:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still, not a WP:G11. Speedy deletion criteria are supposed to be extremely strict. It would take two minutes, tops, to rewrite the article (without even changing the meaning of the sentences) in a non-promotional way; I did not do that, because I think it will be deleted, but it is not pure promotion, hence G11 does not apply.Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Point taken but the creator does need to take those 2 minutes. Domdeparis (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They should, but if they haven't, it is not grounds for deletion. Anyways, no need to argue that any further (we can take it to a personal TP if you so desire). Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 16:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you've lost me...you did nominate this article for deletion ? Domdeparis (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The point being made is that this doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, but does qualify for deletion on the grounds of notability under the standard process of discussion here. I am offerring no opinion on either point, but just trying to prevent you from being lost. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion and AFD are different processes, with different rules for what qualifies. If an article contains any claim of notability at all, then it can't be speedied for notability issues — but it can still be AFD'd for notability issues if the notability claim isn't a compelling or properly sourced one. The difference is that speedy makes the article go away instantly, while AFD is a process that lasts at least a week and allows people the latitude to research and improve the article if it's salvageable — so speedy has much narrower conditions for what qualifies, and even an obviously deletable article isn't necessarily a speediable article if it doesn't meet those specific conditions. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, sorry I didn't see this page where I could comment. Adrian is a guy from my area. The campaign made 613 on Kickstarter, but via indiegogo (google lifepack indiegogo) it's over a million usd. I added the lock page as well, that won some awards. I added a 30 under 30 list I found him on as well. I'm new at wikipedia stuff, so I'm trying to do my dues by contributing to some other articles as well. Does this clarify? Jesperxson (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:02, 16 November 2016 (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.