Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chad Hower

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. Randykitty (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Hower

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Subject does not meet WP:NBIO; I cannot find two WP:GNG sources about the subject. Some WP:BLPCRIME information was removed from this article following my post to WP:BLPN#Chad Hower. The alleged crime associated with the subject does not meet WP:NCRIME. I believe the article should be deleted. Levivich (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Technology, Cyprus, Russia, Turkey, and Pennsylvania. Levivich (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a few brief mentions of his career, e.g. in Professional Programming From The Beginning Part 2 (2022) at 260: "Since its beginnings by Chad Z. Hower in 1993, Indy has evolved greatly and is now a comprehensive socket library available on several platforms"; Building Kylix Applications (2001) at 738; Mastering Borland Delphi 2005 at 759, but nothing in-depth, even with a combination of sources per WP:BASIC. He appears to be a nonpublic figure, and the limited/local coverage of the alleged crime does not seem appropriate to include per BLP policy. Beccaynr (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Here, I agreed with the Nominators' View. Sahilrazvii999 (talk) 06:09, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. 2A01:E0A:2C9:A5E0:74A0:FDAF:92DA:F0F5 (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changes will be made but this page should stay up. The coverage of the alleged crime is most definitely notable, I'm not sure how an alleged crime is not allowed to be discussed, especially when the point of the discussion is not to presume him guilty, it is to discuss how the case and controversy point to government wrongdoing. I do not know how wikipedia editing very well but I will try to bring this page up to standard. Do not delete. Cpg123123 (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We are limited by various policies, including how to write about living people, and what Wikipedia is not. One of the policies is Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a means of promotion, which seems relevant due to available sources and after my unsuccessful search for secondary sources with independent context or commentary (e.g. WP:DEPTH) about the pending case, including on GScholar, the Wikipedia Library, and a legal research database. What we refer to as WP:BASIC notability (a notability guideline that outlines the type of sources needed for an article about a person) also does not seem supported at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article subject passes GNG with significant coverage by reliable sources. Serratra (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you post two examples of GNG sources? Levivich (talk) 03:06, 26 January 2023 (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.