Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Anthony Williams
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. - Mailer Diablo 10:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank You Who ever it was that deleted this - THANK YOU! I created it months ago - about me - as an example to show someone how easy it was to create a Wiki entry. I expected it would be just as easy to delete it, particular as I do not regard myself as notable and as it was nothing more than a quick slapped together CV copied and pasted from my own website. I did try several times to delete it but unfortunately the whole Wiki thing seemed a little more complicated than I had first imagined. However there seemed to be some insistance that it should remain and I can not imagine who the people were who kept amending it, where they got the information and why! Best wishes and kindest regards, Paul Williams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammonoid (talk • contribs)
- Paul Anthony Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
As far as I can see, this is a CV of a science researcher for TV programmes. I'm sure he's good at it - and deserves the credit. But encyclopedic? -Docg 17:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm surprised you didn't attack this on BLP grounds (j/k, since he wrote the article that would be an impossibility). Yes, the subject of the article wrote most of the material. But it's been updated by other users since that time. It's a stub which will slowly grow with time. It should be noted we have articles for writers on Star Trek (because of fancruft) so why not a scientist working for a regular show? -N 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because he's just a researcher doing his job? Why is he notable?--Docg 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to delete, fails Google test (horribly, I think we are the only website even mentioning this guy, and that includes searches without the middle name). -N 07:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not really concerned that he's a TV guy but I don't see anything inline with WP:PROF. JodyB talk 22:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless being a fellow of the society cited in the text is a sufficient claim to notability (I'm willing to be convinced here). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 04:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A TV researcher, non-notable among the many other such researchers. (Oh, and "pub quizmaster." Puh-leaze.) --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 20:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not notable --Francisco Valverde 10:50, 9 June 2007 (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.