Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Leach (writer): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:40, 27 December 2007

John Leach (writer)

I am the subject of this article and in view of a dispute that has arisen on the talk page and in the content of the article, I believe it is right that the Wikipedia membership should be asked to reach a consensus BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure what the rationale for this nomination is. Reading the talk page, it appears that Mr Leach (BlackJack, the nominator) feels that he passes WP:BIO (so the article should be kept), but has nominated the article for deletion so that his notability can be confirmed. I would remind him that stare decisis does not apply to Wikpedia, and that, even if this AfD results in a "Keep", there's no restriction on the article being re-nominated immediately. If not exactly a bad-faith nomination, it's certainly out-of-process - perhaps the best thing to do is close _this_ AfD, and wait until one of Mr Leach's detractors raises a genuine objection to his notability. Tevildo (talk) 21:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will not vote yet because I am not impartial, but I will not refrain from comment. I don't think Jack wants to keep the article which he has never supported, though he did once make a bad edit revert. He simply wants the WP community to decide if the article meets WP:NOTABILITY. Even if he isn't notable he is certainly noble! I agree that the AfD should be closed because the onus is on his "detractor" (there is only one) to raise objections officially instead of effectively vandalising the article. --AlbertMW (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There are some potential claims to notability here, but I don't see how we can necessarily document them using independent sources (i.e. not the organization that publishes him). Procedurally BlackJack is allowing this notability concern to see the light of day. I think it's a legitimate beef, although there are some accusations of bad faith (see Talk), but if the original article doesn't meet our standards anyone should be allowed to object. --Dhartung | Talk 02:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Entirely agree with your last point. I would point out there has been no bad faith unless the minor details input by User:GeorgeWilliams contravene: he and BlackJack are known to be personal friends but it seems that all George did was correct the date of birth and a few other minor points. --AlbertMW (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Following Tevildo, I am quite happy to question this fellow's notability. There are zero reliable sources about the subject; simply links to web articles of his. Numerous unsourced statements and peacock terms puffing up his alleged credentials riddle the article. Zero hits on Google Scholar. RGTraynor 04:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What exactly has Google got to do with it? Kindly refrain from "trying to be clever" by using rubbish like "peacock terms" that means nothing to most people. The fact is that he has produced several works and those are freely referenced by Wikipedia editors in the cricket and philately projects. That means there are several WP editors who consider his work notable and so he as their author must be notable too. In addition he has been designated as cricket editor on CZ (I just added that to the article). --AlbertMW (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment Okay, I see what you mean about "peacock terms" and I have removed words like "significant" and "major contribution". I think the article is now very NPOV. --AlbertMW (talk) 07:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I commend to you WP:PEACOCK, one of the elements of Wikipedia's MoS, a term well-known to AfD regulars, if possibly less so to those editors who focus their attention on cricket. I've just added some content dispute tags, given that the article is not anywhere close to NPOV; there are many unreferenced and unsourced statements of opinion. RGTraynor 14:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think a bit of work is needed. Leave it with me. --AlbertMW (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Talk page discussion not very relevant here. Notable enough. Certainly lots more notable and substantive than thousands of wannabe rock stars, cartoon characters and quasi athletes that are uncontested on wikipedia. Decoratrix (talk) 04:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good points. The usage of his work for reference purposes by WP editors bears this out. --AlbertMW (talk) 07:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The ACS and The Cricket Society themselves have confirmed the subject's notability by publishing and reviewing his work. I can verify from my own collection of quarterly ACS journals, i.e., The Cricket Statistician, that the ACS published several more pieces by Mr Leach between 2003 and 2007 as well as the various discussions about his work that resulted in the "Early Cricket Project" – now described in the article.

The ACS review mentioned by Richard Daft provides further confirmation of Mr Leach's notability. Indeed, the review is quite favourable, especially where it commends Mr Leach for his industry in consolidating data from numerous rare sources so that the information will be readily available to the vast majority of readers who never will have access to those sources. Yet Daft claims the sources are freely and readily available! You may believe me and the ACS reviewer that they are quite rare. Daft compounds his lack of credibility when he says Mr Leach is out of order for obtaining material from other sources!!!! What do writers do with those big bibliographies they include in their work, one wonders?
What really does make me laugh is Daft's statement that the ACS review proves Mr Leach is not a historian. It is true that the reviewer does have one big issue with Mr Leach's work. And that is that he includes too much history!!!! Oh, dearie me.....
This item should not be in AFD: I reverted all the Daft edits and it should have been left at that. I would point out that the WP cricket project is highly developed, consisting of a large group of people who really know their subject, and those people have accepted without demur the work of Mr Leach as an authentic source for verification of hundreds of relevant cricket project articles. I daresay the philately project would say likewise. The subject is unquestionably notable so keep. --AlbertMW (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 * '''Comment''' Good points.  The usage of his work for reference purposes by WP editors bears this out.  --[[User:AlbertMW|AlbertMW]] ([[User talk:AlbertMW|talk]]) 07:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
-* '''Keep.'''  The ACS and [[The Cricket Society]] themselves have confirmed the subject's notability by publishing and reviewing his work.  I can verify from my own collection of quarterly ACS journals, i.e., ''The Cricket Statistician'', that the ACS published several more pieces by Mr Leach between 2003 and 2007 as well as the various discussions about his work that resulted in the "Early Cricket Project" &ndash; now described in the article.
+* '''Keep.'''  The ACS and [[The Cricket Society]] themselves have confirmed the subject's notability by publishing and reviewing his work.  I can verify from my own collection of quarterly ACS journals, i.e., ''The Cricket Statistician'', that the ACS published several more pieces by Mr Leach between 2003 and 2007 as well as the various discussions about his work that resulted in the "Early Cricket Project" &ndash; now described in the article.<br />
-::The ACS review mentioned by Richard Daft provides further confirmation of Mr Leach's notability.  Indeed, the review is quite favourable, especially where it commends Mr Leach for his industry in consolidating data from numerous rare sources so that the information will be readily available to the vast majority of readers who never will have access to those sources.  Yet Daft claims the sources are freely and readily available!  You may believe me and the ACS reviewer that they are quite rare.   Daft compounds his lack of credibility when he says Mr Leach is out of order for obtaining material from other sources!!!!  What do writers do with those big bibliographies they include in their work, one wonders?<br />
+The ACS review mentioned by Richard Daft provides further confirmation of Mr Leach's notability.  Indeed, the review is quite favourable, especially where it commends Mr Leach for his industry in consolidating data from numerous rare sources so that the information will be readily available to the vast majority of readers who never will have access to those sources.  Yet Daft claims the sources are freely and readily available!  You may believe me and the ACS reviewer that they are quite rare.   Daft compounds his lack of credibility when he says Mr Leach is out of order for obtaining material from other sources!!!!  What do writers do with those big bibliographies they include in their work, one wonders?<br />
 What really does make me laugh is Daft's statement that the ACS review proves Mr Leach is not a historian.  It is true that the reviewer does have one big issue with Mr Leach's work.  And that is that he includes too much history!!!!  Oh, dearie me.....<br />
 This item should not be in AFD: I reverted all the Daft edits and it should have been left at that.  I would point out that the WP cricket project is highly developed, consisting of a large group of people who really know their subject, and those people have accepted without demur the work of Mr Leach as an authentic source for verification of hundreds of relevant cricket project articles.  I daresay the philately project would say likewise.  The subject is unquestionably notable so keep.   --[[User:AlbertMW|AlbertMW]] ([[User talk:AlbertMW|talk]]) 21:38, 27 December 2007 (UTC)