Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arran Fernandez
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. And discuss a potential redirect at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arran Fernandez[edit]
- Arran Fernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – <noincludre>(View log)
I did prod this originally but it was removed. A few issues come to mind really, firstly and most obviously BLP1E. Secondly, further expansion of the article (if remotely possible) would involve including personal details of the subject (a minor). Thirdly, the article content is already viewable on another article . Thanks. — R2 20:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To General Certificate of Secondary Education section as mentioned by nom. This is clearly WP:ONEEVENT. §FreeRangeFrog 20:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Reversing. The expansion work done by 86.42.133.228 clearly invalidates WP:ONEEVENT. This is a much different article than the one that was initially AfD'ed. §FreeRangeFrog 21:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Redirect - What they said ^^ - Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to General_Certificate_of_Secondary_Education#History_and_format, per above. Enigmamsg 22:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, and alter General_Certificate_of_Secondary_Education#History_and_format if thought necessary. It is not correct to state that this is WP:ONEEVENT. The subject's examination records set in 2001, 2002, and 2003 were all reported in the international media, as Google News verifies.86.42.133.228 (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well not to the letter of the law, but it's one narrow context, WP:ONEEXAM. Remarkable individual, but I'm not sure about the notability to warrant a separate bio at this stage of his academic career. He does have a record, but being sensible, everything necessary to say about him is covered by GCSE. Redirect to the article is ample imo, but it would not be surprising if he does several notable things in years to come. Ddawkins73 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that would be against WP:CRYSTAL. ;) — R2 01:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Ddawkins73 (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But that would be against WP:CRYSTAL. ;) — R2 01:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well not to the letter of the law, but it's one narrow context, WP:ONEEXAM. Remarkable individual, but I'm not sure about the notability to warrant a separate bio at this stage of his academic career. He does have a record, but being sensible, everything necessary to say about him is covered by GCSE. Redirect to the article is ample imo, but it would not be surprising if he does several notable things in years to come. Ddawkins73 (talk) 00:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Every qualification and every award in every country in the world has a youngest winner. People sitting exams at a young age are unusual, but not that unusual. – iridescent 01:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How are WP:N requirements not met? The spirit of the law on WP:ONEEVENT is surely temporariness? If subject's records, and reporting thereof, came within one week, rather than being spaced out over three years, there would be a case for invoking this, but this is not the case.86.42.133.228 (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm (thinks)... maybe that guideline is a red herring here, because there's something not right about a separate bio. The point at issue is that it's one narrow context, and there's nothing appropriate to add to the article. I think the thing to consider is whether it's better left as the stub it is, or redirected into the GCSE article. It comes down to whether a reader searching for his name or stumbling upon the article would be better served by context of the GCSE article. It's just that a bio is not appropriate, (and) there's no independent notability. Ddawkins73 (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What sort of biographical details might be addable to the article if they could be verifiably found? I will try to look for some. The subject was the "Person of the Week" on Frank Elstner's chat show on German TV in 2001. In 2003 he appeared on Terry Wogan's show on British TV and trounced mathematics populariser Johnny Ball in a mental arithmetic contest. There are some other bits and pieces too. Perhaps these could usefully be added to the article? One problem is that although everyone seems agreed that this subject's records are encyclopaedic, in the GCSE article as it stands they look as though they have just been parachuted into the "History and Format" section. Thus if the question is which is preferable, to keep this as a stub or to have the information only in the GCSE article, I am not sure that the answer is the latter. I feel that there is scope for improving both articles.86.42.133.228 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, fine. Keep - Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What sort of biographical details might be addable to the article if they could be verifiably found? I will try to look for some. The subject was the "Person of the Week" on Frank Elstner's chat show on German TV in 2001. In 2003 he appeared on Terry Wogan's show on British TV and trounced mathematics populariser Johnny Ball in a mental arithmetic contest. There are some other bits and pieces too. Perhaps these could usefully be added to the article? One problem is that although everyone seems agreed that this subject's records are encyclopaedic, in the GCSE article as it stands they look as though they have just been parachuted into the "History and Format" section. Thus if the question is which is preferable, to keep this as a stub or to have the information only in the GCSE article, I am not sure that the answer is the latter. I feel that there is scope for improving both articles.86.42.133.228 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm (thinks)... maybe that guideline is a red herring here, because there's something not right about a separate bio. The point at issue is that it's one narrow context, and there's nothing appropriate to add to the article. I think the thing to consider is whether it's better left as the stub it is, or redirected into the GCSE article. It comes down to whether a reader searching for his name or stumbling upon the article would be better served by context of the GCSE article. It's just that a bio is not appropriate, (and) there's no independent notability. Ddawkins73 (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How are WP:N requirements not met? The spirit of the law on WP:ONEEVENT is surely temporariness? If subject's records, and reporting thereof, came within one week, rather than being spaced out over three years, there would be a case for invoking this, but this is not the case.86.42.133.228 (talk) 08:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but wouldn't this be WP:THREEEXAMS rather than ONEEXAM or ONEEVENT. - Mgm|(talk) 10:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mebbe. 3 times same exam (Had to resit :D). Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No - certainly three different exams, namely the Foundation, Intermediate, and Higher tiers of the GCSE in Mathematics, which each had their own syllabuses and separate examination papers. According to the news reports, he got the highest available grades each time, and did not resit anything :-) (Nowadays, as described in the GCSE article, Mathematics only has Foundation and Higher tiers, having been brought into line with other subjects).86.42.133.228 (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Mebbe. 3 times same exam (Had to resit :D). Ddawkins73 (talk) 12:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. While a record of this sort should certainly be covered in the relevant article, there's not sufficient other material like biographical details to warrant a separate entry. (Incidentally, personal details of a minor are fair game if they're relatively widely published outside of Wikipedia) It should be redirected as a likely search term. - Mgm|(talk) 10:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added some biographical details with sources, hopefully improving the article and making it less of a stub. These do not appear in the GCSE article or (as far as I know) anywhere else on Wikipedia.86.42.133.228
- I have also added a sentence on the
threeseven integer sequences he has submitted to (and had published by) the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences86.42.133.228 (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have also added a sentence on the
- I have added some biographical details with sources, hopefully improving the article and making it less of a stub. These do not appear in the GCSE article or (as far as I know) anywhere else on Wikipedia.86.42.133.228
- Keep. Thanks for notifying me of the deletion notice, R2. In its current version the article is much better than my original effort, now that the context is broader.Carpet chair (talk) 23:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose: remove stub status and keep. I have tried to fix the obvious weaknesses: narrowness of context (restricted to three GCSE records) and apparent difficulties in locating additional material. (I haven't actually removed stub status, waiting to hear how other editors feel).86.42.133.228 (talk)
- Keep. Now expanded, this is no longer dubious under WP:1E or a case for redirection. Content is also sufficient in terms of Croughton-London "rule", so destubbed.158-152-12-77 (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2009 (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.