Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan P. Barrett
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. There are no sources to verify anything. Sources were questioned yet none have appeared. Happy to userfy this if someone wants to work on it. JodyB talk 17:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alan P. Barrett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Unsourced BLP of marginal notability. Either it should be sourced or deleted. RMHED (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep gbooks picks up 6 of his books, and there are other sources out there. The policy states that a subject must be "verifiable" not "verified". If sources exist, but they are just not in the article, that isn't a reason to AFD. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 00:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish the content to be kept then I suggest you add those sources, all unsourced content will be removed. RMHED (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't use the deletion process to force a WP:DEADLINE on editors. Also, editors are urged to check the subjects out themselves before taking them to AfD. Please consider trying Google first. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish the unsourced BLP content to stay then please source it, I'm certainly not inclined to do so. RMHED (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what I keep bringing up: forcing a BLP that isn't controversial to AFD just to force sources into it, well, I am not so sure that this is a good thing. I do trust you do this in good faith, but honestly, it borders on abuse if you are not searching before naming so many people. If you see sources that are at least borderline, you can NOT go to AFD in good faith if the bio itself isn't controversial. It simply isn't fair. And you can't justify it by simply saying "If you wish the unsourced BLP content to stay then please source it, I'm certainly not inclined to do so." That is showing disrespect for the policies and methods here. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 01:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says the BLP isn't controversial, can you show the content isn't controversial or are assuming as much? The content though is most definitely contentious and any unsourced contentious content should be removed per the BLP policy. RMHED (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You always remove unsourced controversial content. You don't delete the whole article. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 01:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Who says the BLP isn't controversial, can you show the content isn't controversial or are assuming as much? The content though is most definitely contentious and any unsourced contentious content should be removed per the BLP policy. RMHED (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is what I keep bringing up: forcing a BLP that isn't controversial to AFD just to force sources into it, well, I am not so sure that this is a good thing. I do trust you do this in good faith, but honestly, it borders on abuse if you are not searching before naming so many people. If you see sources that are at least borderline, you can NOT go to AFD in good faith if the bio itself isn't controversial. It simply isn't fair. And you can't justify it by simply saying "If you wish the unsourced BLP content to stay then please source it, I'm certainly not inclined to do so." That is showing disrespect for the policies and methods here. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 01:08, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish the unsourced BLP content to stay then please source it, I'm certainly not inclined to do so. RMHED (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't use the deletion process to force a WP:DEADLINE on editors. Also, editors are urged to check the subjects out themselves before taking them to AfD. Please consider trying Google first. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you wish the content to be kept then I suggest you add those sources, all unsourced content will be removed. RMHED (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uncertain On the one hand there's an assertion that he "is included in The Guardian's list of Britain's most influential independent writers in 20060" which might indicate notability, depending how extensive that list is, and on the other the article seems extremely promotional. This is the sort of career where one really needs to findsome reviews. DGG (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's very difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff with this nominator's scattergun approach (please excuse the mixed metaphors) but I can't find anything on the Guardian's website to substantiate the claim to notability[1]. It's a pity the nominator can't provide such links rather than forcing everyone else to do the work. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Pharmboy. There are sources out there. We should be focusing on improving the article rather than deleting it; since it can be improved by the regular editing process, I don't see deletion as a viable option yet. Celarnor Talk to me 15:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. (I think this is a misapplication of BLP.) World cat shows his books in like two libraries world wide [2], [3], [4], [5], so he cannot claim even an assertion of notability as an author. Can't find significant third part sourcing among the 50+ Ghits. or the G news hits. No hits on Galenet via my library access. If the sourcing is out there, I'm gonna need a cane and a guide dog. Dlohcierekim 07:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.