Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Farrel: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:19, 4 January 2018

Adrian Farrel

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

Article currently is a CV cited to primary sources (largely added by the subject himself). There's no evidence at all that any of his books have received significant secondary attention (the most recent three are self-published). Whether or not he'd been elected to a position in a minor UK political party, he'll need to have had significant coverage in reliable seondary sources to meet WP:GNG. In the absence of any compelling claims of notability, time for the article to go. Sionk (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 12:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I created article because the guy has headed many IETF groups and written RFCs. Furthermore, according to Amazon he has authored multiple computer science books. However, for me his non-computer science books were never a criteria of his notability. I do not care if the article is deleted or kept. --- A. L. M. 17:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 9 books written, 25 citations, The previous notice mentions "This article needs attention from an expert in Biography/Science and academia" so unless those proposing deletion are just that - I don't see how the deletion can be proposed. I see nothing to suggest those proposing the deletion have the necessary qualifications. Drowz0r (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what expertise, Wikipedia policy or guidance are you using to support your 'keep'? Sionk (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given our expertise seem roughly the same, my keep and your proposed delete seem equally valid. So it is either worth something and we cancel one another out... or neither of us have the same expertise (looking at your profile my qualifications are likely the same as your own, without going into too much detail on your/my degrees etc). Drowz0r (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 *'''Keep''' 9 books written, 25 citations, The previous notice mentions "This article needs attention from an expert in Biography/Science and academia" so unless those proposing deletion are just that - I don't see how the deletion can be proposed. I see nothing to suggest those proposing the deletion have the necessary qualifications. [[User:Drowz0r|Drowz0r]] ([[User talk:Drowz0r|talk]]) 00:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 ::So what expertise, Wikipedia policy or guidance are you using to support your 'keep'? [[User:Sionk|Sionk]] ([[User talk:Sionk|talk]]) 07:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
+:::Given our expertise seem roughly the same, my keep and your proposed delete seem equally valid. So it is either worth something and we cancel one another out... or neither of us have the same expertise (looking at your profile my qualifications are likely the same as your own, without going into too much detail on your/my degrees etc). [[User:Drowz0r|Drowz0r]] ([[User talk:Drowz0r|talk]]) 23:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)