Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Bishop (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cardydwen (talk | contribs) at 21:17, 12 September 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jonathan Bishop

AfDs for this article:
Jonathan Bishop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article apparently exists to promote the career of Jonathan Bishop, a local politician and web researcher in Wales. It has been extensively edited by SPAs and by Mr. Bishop himself. The article clearly puffed his accomplishments, as established in a discussion here. He is not notable as a politician, but the article attempted to claim notability as the originator of a circle of friends technique used by online social network services such as Friendster. His claim as originator was debunked during the deletion debate for another article written to promote Mr. Bishop's career. His only other claim for notability is as the developer of the PARLE e-learning system for mildly autistic students. But there is no evidence that this system has been implemented anywhere, and it seems that this claim, like the circle of friends claim, is mere puffery. Anthon.Eff (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - could be persuaded otherwise by strong evidence unfortunately attempts to puff this bio by spinning doubtless achievements to more than they are (and edit warring to keep things like succession boxes for very minor local offices) have rather coloured things. However, in a UK context the elected offices held are extremely trivial (mainly unopposed electorally) and there's no real certain evidence of anything else. If someone neutral wants to write an article sometime, that's perhaps different. Further, I strongly suspect meat/sockpuppetry on the previous deletion debates (let me make it clear, this is just a hunch, and I've no idea who is responsible). Please be careful of SPAs in this debate.--Troikoalogo (talk) 17:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Strong delete. Between the pretty low notability of the subject, the edit history of the article and previous AfDs that seem to indicate meat or sock puppetry, a conflict of interest, and self published or unreliable references, I can't find much of a reason to keep this article. Equendil Talk 18:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Promoted to plain delete, too much vanity here. Equendil Talk 03:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC) Promoted to "strong delete", too much puppetry. Equendil Talk 12:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - In my opinion this article is and has been full of 'over-exaggerations' and has been nothing but a glorified self portrait. Jonathanbishop has demonstrated that he has a massive input into what is included on this page, deleting that which he disagrees with. For new people to this debate, I think it is prudent for them to have a look at the discussion page first before they make any comments. [1] Pontyboy (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
  • Delete Perfectly worthy minor local politician who works in computing - but there doesn't seem to be enough independent third-party verification of his significance to add up to notability. Seconding Troikoalogo too: the high degree of SPA and likely COI editing (both pro and anti) surrounding this article and its AFD discussions is very suspicious (see WP:COIN#Jonathan Bishop) and doesn't seem to have been fully taken into account in deciding the outcome of the previous AFDs. I'm signing with my contributions history accessible, and suggest others do likewise. Gordonofcartoon (talk · contribs) 18:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Jonathan's notability has been established in previous AfDs. His political roles only serve to enhance the contribution he is making to society through the technology he has implemented for people with autism and other groups. Jonathan is an asset to the community and his biography should be available for all to see, even if this means he is inadvertently promoted like other notable living people are on Wikipedia. Cardydwen (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - local council members are not usually notable unless they have something else about them - this seems to be nothing other than a piece of advertising, with the subject failing WP:N and extensively self-referencing. Given the conflict of interest it is questionable just how much of the information within the article is true, or at least in proportion. – Toon(talk) 20:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I understand that it is Wikipedia's policy to keep an article if it meets the criteria of general notability, which is that if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic. I will outline how this article meets, point by point: --Jonathan Bishop (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. The works by Jonathan Bishop cited in the article have appeared in independently edited peer-reviewed books, journals and conference proceedings. Jonathan Bishop has also been mentioned directly in the world media, with some examples cited in the article.
  • Reliable means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The articles quoting Jonathan Bishop and/or describing his works in the New Statesman, Washington Post, Beijing Review and Chicago Tribune as mentioned in the article are perfect examples of this. The independently written coverage in the Pontypridd & Llantrisant Observer is also suitable evidence of Jonathan Bishop's notability and serves as supporting evidence for the article.
  • As a final point, the biography of Jonathan Bishop is appearing in Who's Who in the World, which chronicles the careers of 50,000 of the world's most accomplished men and women from all fields of endeavour. As a supporter of Wikipedia, who has used and cited information on Wikipedia in research studies, I feel it would not be in the spirit of the project to delete notable people whose careers and accomplishments have been independently verified, because some people dislike the subject. If this was criteria there would be no page on many notable figures who also have political careers, as politicians are regularly attacked for unjustifiable reasons by their opponents.
  • Comment - more COI and spin - this has been the recurring problem. The publications named New Statesman, Washington Post, Beijing Review and Chicago Tribune are not "covering the subject" - they quote him in passing. Big difference. And it does seem like being in "Who's Who in the World" is pretty much like vanity publishing - see this assessment in forbes.--Troikoalogo (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Key quote being "Who's Who in America also appears to contain a lot of relatively unaccomplished people who simply nominated themselves", and it's reasonable to assume similar criteria apply to Who's Who in the World. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Purely on the basis of notability and that the article clearly serves for Mr Bishop to promote himself. There are thousands of academics out there who have had very distinguished careers but who do not have Wikipedia articles associated with them. Why therefore does little-known Bishop need one? Alfalfbaby (talk) 23:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I just believe the necessary elements of notability in reliably sourced materials are lacking. MBisanz talk 01:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It may cite the Pontypridd & Llantrisant Observer often but this is a reliable and independent news source. I first came across this page after reading Mr Bishop's column it the observer, and think other people who see his name would rather read about him on a site like Wikipedia that is scrutinised than have to refer to his website. I don't know about notability, but he has certainly achieved notoriety, as the case Bishop v Powell (2006) proved, where it was successfully claim that Mr Bishop is often part of the newspaper, which the defense argued successful was significant enough to be a public figure --PontyGirl (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This template must be substituted. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious single purpose account [2].--Troikoalogo (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That aside, being "a public figure" in a smallish town doesn't imply sufficient notability for detailed coverage here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 10:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My main concern here is that if the Circle of Friends page was deemed not notable enough to warrant a page, and yet Jonathan Bishop's main claim to notoriety is through the development of this system, then I see no grounds for his own page. While I have no doubt that his other achievements have helped those he claims to have helped, they are barely notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. Add to this the constant conflict of interest concerns I have about the page as well as the persistent PR spin additions to it are given, I feel it has to go. (ColonelBuendia99 (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)) — ColonelBuendia99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep Cllr Bishop has a number of notable achievements beyond the Circle of Friends, most importantly the PARLE e-learning system, which is now taught on the Autism & Technology course at MIT and cited by leading autism researchers. In political life he was one of the first councillors to blog and his website made him a finalist in the New Media Awards in 2004. Along with all the coverage he has received in the newspapers and the number of independent books and journals that have published his works, that is enough criteria met for there to be an article on him -Politicool (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]
Account only ever edits this article [3]--Troikoalogo (talk) 10:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is completely untrue. I have made significant edits to the Kim Howells and Jane Davidson pages also. You have probably made more edits to Jonathan Bishop and related pages than I in the last month --Politicool (talk) 10:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have had an account for 3 1/2 years - you have a total of 61 article edits, of which 38 are to Jonathan Bishop. If we discount ones marked as minor, you have 33 edits to Bishop and 11 to other articles. 8/9 of you project edits and 9/11 of article talk edits are Bishop related. Sorry, you are right, not all edits are to Bishop - but that article is almost the only reason you edit.--Troikoalogo (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild keep Wikipedia keeps biographies on professionals, such as Michael Van Wijk - the professional sportsman, bodybuilder, actor and TV presenter. The subject of this article as an IT professional that is a full member of a professional body, an acdemic with publications, and a columnist for a newspaper, is worthy of an article on Wikipedia. 217.171.129.69 (talk) 11:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, need better reasons. Every school teacehr is "a full member of a professional body", every academic has at least some publications, and, gosh, I have a fairly regular column in my local rag - they'll print anything.--Troikoalogo (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, let's make a page on every working person in the world. Equendil Talk 12:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Bishop_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=238015681"