Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Denton
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. Proto::type 09:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No assertion of verifiability other than to do original research by checking amazon (as suggested by the talk page). Notability only extends to being a textbook author, but no assertion of awards or multiple independent reviews of any of his work making him no more special than any other professor/academic; thus failing WP:BIO. ju66l3r 15:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. To keep, would need evidence of the notability of his textbooks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom & BHG. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Something of a pile on but wikipedia should not be a repositry of authors' book jacket blurbs. Once that has been taken out this article looks exceedling short. --Spartaz 17:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please do not remove non-nonsense text from the discussed articles while the vote is going. May be useful for research. If an article is not overly hyped or patent nonsense, one has to assume a good faith of a newcomer contributor. `'mikkanarxi 17:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. The autor of a dozen books with 22 reprints by notable publishing houses, meaning that the books do sell, unlike various e-printing and self-publishing, and therefore are used by people, hence notability. The article is surprizingly small to call it a "vanity page". I'd say it is a "modesty page". Also, just a little research would have shown some third party recognition, too for his shareware. `'mikkanarxi 17:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 2 <head shaking> It doesn't stop to amaze me how a pornstar shot in a dozen "nonstop fucking" films is notable but an author of 10+ educational books is not. `'mikkanarxi 18:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 3 It also amazes me a zeal to vandalize this small bio page under ridiculous pretexts. `'mikkanarxi 19:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved an unsourced comment that has no chance at verifiability given its source to the discussion page for discussion. That is not vandalism. Please do not misclassify other users' good faith edits at keeping the article clean under the tenets of wikipedia as vandalism. Please don't add personal attacks to the discussion infering or insinuating other editor's mindsets. Thanks. ju66l3r 19:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. You (all of you) completely deleted a significant piece information about the person, namely his software projects, as well as a 3-rd party link to confirm the info. I can explain this only by the dedsire to bend your POV that the person is nonnotable. `'mikkanarxi 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The link is not 3rd-party. It is Denton's own website. There is already discussion of how it fails WP:RS on the article's talk page. Therefore the reliability and verifiability of the awards listed on the site are suspect without independent sourcing, like the award sites' own statements of recognition for the software. I am trying to discuss this issue on the article's talk page (as I created a section there to discuss the removed text when I removed it..not just deleting it), but nobody seems interested in discussing it there. There is a true explanation, which is my desire to see WP:V withheld, not bending anything to my PoV. ju66l3r 19:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly suggest all you to read the reliability rules when a person's website is a valid source information about this person. `'mikkanarxi 19:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong. You (all of you) completely deleted a significant piece information about the person, namely his software projects, as well as a 3-rd party link to confirm the info. I can explain this only by the dedsire to bend your POV that the person is nonnotable. `'mikkanarxi 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved an unsourced comment that has no chance at verifiability given its source to the discussion page for discussion. That is not vandalism. Please do not misclassify other users' good faith edits at keeping the article clean under the tenets of wikipedia as vandalism. Please don't add personal attacks to the discussion infering or insinuating other editor's mindsets. Thanks. ju66l3r 19:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable, poor grammar, unsourced claims...et al L0b0t 16:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep borderline notability. Grammar is to fix not to delete. All notability claims (not so many of them, though) as I see are sourced. Mukadderat 17:39, 25 October 2006 (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.