Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Asimov: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:37, 1 October 2006

David Asimov

At best, article fails notability, and some versions were negative and poorly sourced. If the article could be left as it stands, (just date of birth, son of Isaac Asimov), I guess it would be a harmless nonnotable spot on Wikipedia's hard drive, but I fear the stub will be a springboard for more poorly sourced negative edits. Rich 08:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. David Mestel^(Talk) 09:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MER-C 09:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; marginally notable individual who happens to have some negative information about him that was fairly well sourced in the older version of the article.--Prosfilaes 10:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being the son of someone famous isn't enough to make you notable. David Mestel^(Talk) 10:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mere relation is rarely but sometimes sufficient, but the relatives of the famous frequently become notable by actions that would go unnoted if done by others. I believe the notability argument goes out the window when you're talking about articles made by people unrelated to and personally unfamiliar with the the subject. They're notable, or the article wouldn't have been made.--Prosfilaes 10:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Older versions were not well sourced, and the idea that articles are automatically notable when made by those unfamiliar with the subject is untenable. Michael Kinyon 12:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Problems with sourcing information do not justify deletion. -- Four Dog Night 13:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least for maintaining his father's papers and possessions. Billy Blythe 15:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mention can be made at Isaac Asimov and this can be turned into a redirect. Eusebeus 15:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced articles on living persons are a bad thing. Anville 17:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not add anything to Wikipedia. FCYTravis 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a somewhat tricky situation. As the article stands now, it is probably a speedy under CSD:A7 (to me, at least, mere relation to a notable person is not an assertion of notability). However, it's probably necessary to look at the previous version of the article, taking WP:BLP into consideration, and determining whether the several factors (being the son of a famous person + the [well-sourced] allegations of criminal conduct + the [poorly-sourced] report of conviction on at least some charges) add up to suitability for a Wikipedia article, and I would conclude that they simply aren't. --MCB 20:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 *'''Delete.'''  Poorly sourced articles on living persons are [[WP:LIVING|a bad thing]].  [[User:Anville|Anville]] 17:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' - Does not add anything to Wikipedia. [[User:FCYTravis|FCYTravis]] 18:29, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Delete'''. This is a somewhat tricky situation. As the article stands now, it is probably a speedy under CSD:A7 (to me, at least, mere relation to a notable person is not an assertion of notability). However, it's probably necessary to look at the previous version of the article, taking [[WP:BLP]] into consideration, and determining whether the several factors (being the son of a famous person + the [well-sourced] allegations of criminal conduct + the [poorly-sourced] report of conviction on at least some charges) add up to suitability for a Wikipedia article, and I would conclude that they simply aren't. --[[User:MCB|MCB]] 20:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)