Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theo Clarke: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 10:51, 22 December 2006

Theo Clarke

Procedural nomination of previously-speedied article Phil | Talk 14:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article appears to present multiple justifications for notability, and furthermore has four inward links from other articles. I cannot understand why this was a valid speedy candidate. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Inbound links are not a justification in any way. If they were, then our vandals would simply crosslink their names from all the "bands" they formed. There are no actual claims in the article of notability, as each of the listed accomplishments is certainly admirable but not actually a position of leadership, public fame, or superior placement in the field. However, if you have a question, you are supposed to use DRV, instead of simply undeleting. HTH Geogre 18:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he has certainly had a busy career but as far as I can see he is not notable for the purposes of WP:BIO. The Royal Society of Arts has 24,999 other fellows, and Google results are mostly Wikipedia mirrors. Demiurge 15:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this seems a gray area to me. Several companies started, some authorship, inward links, all together suggest notability. I would tend to favour shading toward delete if the subject is a longstanding contributor who wants not to have it (that's not an open and shut reason, but a shading). But I'm seeing enough notability to build a case for keep barring that. Note that a speedy was in my view, not warranted. This is an area where some discussion would be of benefit. withhold opinion barring more information. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i'm gonna have to say while at first glance this guy has done alot... none of these honors/accomplishments are sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO guidelines. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 15:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject of the article tagged this for speedy deletion, as he recognized, as others did, that the article fails WP:BIO, and he didn't write it or want it. The article was speedy deleted because it literally makes no claim to notability, which is a perfectly valid A7. Undeletion should not have taken place without the use of WP:DRV, which is a place that all users must employ, not just non-administrators, as there the validity of the A7 deletion could have been assessed. So, we have another week for outside sites to gather up personal details about a Wikipedian, another week of potential abuse. I'm not sure "HTH" or how this will allow anyone to "HAND." The article is a delete and was a delete. Geogre 18:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone wanna source it - thats really what notability is about, the ability to source it -- Tawker 00:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Geogre. Theo Clarke (the wikipedian) is entitled to his privacy. If he wanted it kept he would add further information to display his notability, he has not. He has expressed surprise that he is considered notable (not false modesty but genuine surprise) he has asserted the wish this page be deleted, and in this case his wishes should be respected. .Giano 07:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, I'm fairly sympathetic to Giano's statement above. However, it would be a major change of policy to decide (a) that bio subjects are entitled to their privacy, and (b) the wishes of the subject are to be a consideration. As it stands, Wikipedia has rejected both those principles. (See Daniel Brandt and Angela Beesley). As I say, I somewhat warm to these ideas in cases of marginal notability. However, I reject the idea of special treatment for our Wikipedian friends. Either this bio stands (or is deleted), like others, on its notability/verifiability, or we make a major change policy for all bios.--Doc^g 09:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Doc, I'm not just speaking as one of Theo's friends, I'm also saying "As the page stands it is non notable and even what little is there is unreffed", and from the google hits available, unless Theo himself chooses to expand the page (he has indicated that he won't) the page fails WP:BIO. Giano 09:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a quick bit of google research on the name and some of the terms in the article provides quite a bit of verifiable info. So, I don't think we're dependent on the subject, actually. Someone could easily reference this, and probably expand it too. However, as to whether we'd want to keep it if they did, I really don't know.--Doc^g 09:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article at the time of the speedy made no serious claim to notability. That being said, I actually looked at this when it was so tagged and, purely on the face of the multiple but individually non-notable claims, chickened out and went to softer targets. So Endorse balls-y deletion since that should be the venue that this is being discussed in. The article as it stands still makes no cited claim to notability, and as such should be deleted unless more evidence is introduced. Nothing to do with "niceness" or "mateship" here, but in the event that it was a line ball, we should be nice to everyone as long as we retain our integrity. - brenneman 10:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline notability, as admitted by the subject. Angela and Daniel B (no, not me, the other one) were, in my opinion, substantially more notable than this. I would have probably not been inclined to give my opinion if the subject wasn't requesting deletion - just another AfD bio - and if I had of, it probably would have been a weak delete. However, the borderline notability coupled with the expressed wish of the subject, who is acting in a decent way, has swung my !vote. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 :::*Actually, a quick bit of google research on the name and some of the terms in the article provides quite a bit of verifiable info. So, I don't think we're dependent on the subject, actually. Someone could easily reference this, and probably expand it too. However, as to whether we'd want to keep it if they did, I really don't know.--[[User talk:Doc glasgow|Doc]]<sup>g</sup> 09:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The article at the time of the speedy made no serious claim to notability.  That being said, I actually looked at this when it was so tagged and, purely on the face of the multiple but individually non-notable claims, chickened out and went to softer targets.  So '''Endorse balls-y deletion''' since that should be the venue that this is being discussed in.  The article as it stands still makes no [[WP:RS|cited]] claim to notability, and as such should be deleted unless more evidence is introduced.  Nothing to do with "niceness" or "mateship" here, but in the event that it was a line ball, we should be nice to everyone as long as we retain our integrity.  - <font color="black">[[User talk:Aaron Brenneman|brenneman]]</font> 10:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
+*'''Delete''', borderline notability, as admitted by the subject. Angela and Daniel B (no, not me, the ''other'' one) were, in my opinion, substantially more notable than this. I would have probably not been inclined to give my opinion if the subject wasn't requesting deletion - just another AfD bio - and if I had of, it probably would have been a weak delete. However, the borderline notability coupled with the expressed wish of the subject, who is acting in a decent way, has swung my !vote. '''[[User:Daniel.Bryant|Daniel.Bryant]] <sup>[&nbsp;[[User talk:Daniel.Bryant|T]]&nbsp;·&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Daniel.Bryant|C]]&nbsp;]</sup>''' 10:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)