Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Openshaw

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 Nominator withdrew. John Vandenberg 19:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Openshaw[edit]

Withdraw/quit. Seems notable with new stuff now Cornea 15:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hmm, seems pretty notable to me - the numerous sources and others such as this BBC story fulfill the primary criterion of WP:N, and as for BLP, well the story of Openshaw's "awkward statement" is verifiable and well-sourced. The article is not written as a smear either. --Canley 15:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ per CSD G10, article exists solely to propagate disparaging material about Mr. Openshaw. This is not a "biography" in any sense of the word - if incident is deemed encyclopedic, merge it somewhere else. We don't write single-incident-source biographies anymore. Period. FCYTravis 16:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made it be a speedy delete instead. Please delete it. Cornea 17:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined to speedy it and will let this AFD proceed as there's already one vote to keep. -- Netsnipe ► 17:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll tell Travis. Cornea 17:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Canley.--SarekOfVulcan 17:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important man. He is not just some country judge. Further the issue raised by his comment, 'There is a widespread belief online that many politicians and policy makers don't understand the Internet well enough to regulate it,' is also important. See "I don't really understand what a Web site is.". WAS 4.250 17:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a biography. I've redirected to the statement. If we can have a verifiable article about the statement, that's one thing. We don't have enough to write a biography of him. FCYTravis 17:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How do you know we do not have enough--you mean the article at present does not have enough--there is no requirement that we complete all articles to keep them from deletion, as long as he subject is notable. DGG 05:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Openshaw didn't make the widespread belief comment, Ed Felten did.--SarekOfVulcan 17:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as redirect to sourced discussion of his statement. We don't need two separate pages saying the exact same things, and we should avoid pretending that this one incident is Mr. Openshaw's entire life. Thus, a page about the statement is a good choice. FCYTravis 17:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Openshaw Internet statements. Only notable for that. Cornea 18:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge there's no reason to duplicate pages & content here & Openshaw Internet statements. — Scientizzle 18:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete or Merge. near as i can tell, Openshaw has two main claims to fame. (1) he was appointed to be a judge on the same day as his wife and (2) he said something about the internet that got a lot of attention. the BBC may think (1) is notable, however, i don't. and (2) is about as notable as

Vincent Ferrari, an article i think should be deleted (and will probably nominate at some point) Misterdiscreet 19:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and summarize the trivia about the web stuff. Wait until the AfD is completed before forking ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A seperate article covering the publicity around a single event is in accord with WP:BLP section "Articles about living people notable only for one event" where it says "Cover the event, not the person." Ifn fact this person is a notable judge and should have an article on him. But the coverage of this event in the article on him must not be givenundue weight. Having a seperate article on the statement, the media coverage of it, and the reason for the internet attention to the statement is not a POV fork, but is proper coverage of an issue. Blowjob is not a POV fork of Bill Clinton either. WAS 4.250 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is sourced and judge appears notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 20:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete bio article and Deletearticle on statement. We are not Quotapedia, with an article for every stupid sounding statement made by every non-notable person, and we certainly do not need to create a biography for the unfortunate individual, even if it made a little splash in the papers or was a water-cooler story. Both articles could be deleted per WP:NOT as indiscriminate information. On the other hand, someday it might be as famous an incident as Senator Ted Stevens saying the internet is a Series of tubes. (Perhaps they should call each other for tech support). Edison 22:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the UK its is as important as Ted Stevens. People who try and delete articles because they never heard of the topic, or because they are from sources such as the BBC, the Guardian or Reuters, are just plain wrong. You showing regional bias. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 22:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons I give here and here. But, some might think I'm biased, being the article creator; maybe, but I've actually read the reports and the following comments.- Peter Ellis - Talk 00:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is surely notable, the article is sourced and the tone of the article is not disparaging. Even without the Internet statements the subject would be notable by way of the positions he holds and has held. If an article was to be deleted then Openshaw Internet statements would be the better candidate, but I see no reason for deleting that either. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 02:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he would be notable as a high court judge even if he had not made that statement--but neither his career, nor the incident of the statement itself are adequately discussed. DGG 05:22, 7 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.