Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Dobson (2nd nomination)

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. I can't see the keep side advancing any significant coverage that would make notability more than marginal. On that basis we should honour his request. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Dobson[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted on the basis of WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE (see AFD1 for details). Recreated but I don't see any taking this much further forward in terms of showing notability to trump his request for deletion. Bencherlite ^Talk 13:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are tens of thousands of similar articles on Wikipedia showing the basic biographical data, labour history and main publications. I guess more than 80% of all biographical articles on Wikipedia are this way. When the basis is right, a specialist can come around and expand the article some more to describe the context, meaning and spin-off of his work. And as long as this doesn't happen, these articles have a status in Wikipedia as being a start-quality article, which is the regular practice. In a situation like this I would appreciate any effort to get this process started. If therefore this article should be deleted first, so be it. I already clarified on the talk page, that I noticed this name was mentioned in 30 present wikipedia articles. Some of his works are cited over a 1000 times, which makes him notable enough for inclusion. There is a similar article on the German Wikipedia. And tens of thousands similar articles there. And tens of thousands similar articles in older encyclopedias. Frankly, the motivation to delete this articles reads to me as a request to delete most content of Wikipedia and all encyclopedias. -- Mdd (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus of the last discussion was to delete the article. If you disagree with the decision, then you should go to WP:DRV, not just recreate the article. Having checked the deleted version of the article, I don't see much difference. The number of incoming links (some of which are not about this Andrew Dobson, unless he has also written about birds in Bermuda for example), and the existence of articles in other language versions of Wikipedia, are not themselves proof of anything. Appealing to WP:WAX isn't great either, and hyperbolic statements suggesting that the motivation is to delete most of Wikipedia won't help. Bencherlite^Talk 14:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - On the Dutch and English Wikipedia I have contributed to over 10.000 biographical articles, creating and/or significantly improving over 2500 articles, and I am the first to admit there is a lot the improve here. Studying Andrew Dobson on Google Scholar learns he is co-author of multiple books cited over 1000 times, and he authored some high cited works himself. I can also understand that there can be disappointment, that this is not (yet) represented in the current article. I think the right expert hasn't come along yet to make this happen. I would very much like that more experts would participate to wikipedia and make such things happen. yet in my particular field, and even more on a smaller Wikipedia like the Dutch Wikipedia I don't see this happens very often. For me this is a motivation to keep contributing even though I know I might go beyond my actual expertise. My experience say the basics are just correct here. Yet, I might have overseen some of the wikilinks to this article, I will double check. -- Mdd (talk) 15:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC) P.S. Ok, I double checked: 27 wiki-links seem to be correct, and 2 were wrong. I am sorry, my mistake.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 14:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with the nominator. There's nothing in the article to trump WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I'm also going to request that the closing admin salt the page so that it can't be re-created without good reason. --Non-Dropframe _talk 14:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see any solid basis for considering BLPREQUESTDELETE; the subject is a reasonably prominent figure, an Oxford University Press author, the winner of a noteworthy award in his field (linked to a different prize of a similar name in the article), and his website shows no intention to maintain a low profile -- indeed, it shows a clear pattern of prominent public advocacy. His website also notes he was a coauthor of the "Green Party General Election Manifesto" earlier this year. Politically active folks often try to control or limit what others write about them online, but it is not behaviour we should be indulging on Wikipedia. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've never participated in one of these discussions before, but I just came across this while looking for information on Andrew Dobson. I agree that the article could be better and does need more references, but I think he's clearly more worthy of inclusion than a lot of other BLP entries - I've seen surprisingly detailed entries for non-league sports players or one-hit wonder pop stars and he's far more prominent in his field than that.20:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)AT-Ben (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 21:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete and salt~~ ~~at subject's request.~~ Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and salt, not a must have article, will probably currently rank as "low importance". If his future actions give him signifiant attention this can be reconsidered. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2015 (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.