Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Albright
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 keep. - Mailer Diablo 13:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Asserted to be the first non-governmental inspector of the Iraqi nuclear program, but otherwise seems to be non-notable. Gut feeling: delete. --Nlu (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I am also proposing Institute for Science and International Security (no other assertion of notability other than he is the president of it) for deletion. --Nlu (talk) 14:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - In addition to being the first non-governmental inspector in Iraq, Albright also has an impressive amount of published articles and books on the topic of nuclear proliferation. The article needs improvement (and sources besides the individual's college bio) but I think Albright passes notability standards both academically and on the basis of his career as an author. -bobby 14:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This guy is more notable than your average college professor. He's got quotes from the recent North Korean nuclear incident, so he's still worth finding. FrozenPurpleCube 15:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If anything, this article understates his notability. Wasn't he the guy that said that Bush et al had deliberately misled everyone with their lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? (See for example: D. Albright, “Iraq’s Aluminum Tubes: Separating Fact from Fiction,” December 5, 2003. Online at www.isis-online.org) Emeraude 16:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - I thought that name was familiar. He's quoted in this Guardian article, and here and here are CNN interviews. Certainly with the North Korean dispute on the front pages, this should be an easy decision. Bpmullins 17:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and cleanup by citing sources such as those listed by Emeraude and Bpmullins above. Barno 20:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Request for further comment -- please also see what your opinions on whether to delete Institute for Science and International Security. --Nlu (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that one is a delete. There's a lot of overlap with Albright and in this case I'd let the person's article represent the organization. -- Bpmullins 21:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree with Bpmullins. Better avoid potential duplication and/or conflicting versions. Stammer 07:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that one is a delete. There's a lot of overlap with Albright and in this case I'd let the person's article represent the organization. -- Bpmullins 21:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The guy is a quite influential expert in his field. The article should rather be expanded. Stammer 06:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems like he's well-regarded as an expert in the field. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 00:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Frequently a consulted "expert" on news shows and for print articles. --Oakshade 02:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Subject is notable as an expert in his field. Yamaguchi先生 05:18, 4 November 2006
- 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.