Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William John Peacock

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

William John Peacock[edit]

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

Non-notable "Information Systems Specialist". Doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines for people. I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Pontificalibus (talk) 10:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this on NPP. He may be notable, but = it certainly needs sources. I've asked the editor for them,. I would have considered it better practice to wait until he's had a chance to add them. DGG ( talk ) 11:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd indicated as such in your edit summary, instead of removing the speedy tag without mention, I might well have waited a while. However for bios of living people with English-language names, I'm generally of the opinion that if I can't find suitable sources myself, then there are no suitable sources.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have somewhat less self-confidence, and never make that assumption, unless it's in a field where I have what I know are totally comprehensive search facilities--and even then, I've made errors. Nor did you say in your edit summary that you had searched. We neither of us communicated optimally, but AfD is the right way to get others to help. DGG ( talk ) 20:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~per WP:SPIP, promotional and~~ no 3rd party sources, and nothing in the article indicates to me that he is notable. Successful at his profession, but not WP:Notable - KeptSouth (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Prolix career history of non-notable info-tech person. No sources, no GS citations, etc. WP:SPA nature of creating account Wjp27947, coupled with the user-name, strongly suggests this is little more than a vanity page. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No third-party reliable sources are included (nor can be found in Google news) to substantiate any of this or attest to his notability per WP:GNG. (I found this through the academic deletion sorting page but he doesn't really appear to be an academic so WP:PROF is even farther out of reach.) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Profile on a consultancy site suggests he's better known just as "John Peacock", without the William. PamD (talk) 09:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even then, still can't find anything on this particular individual (though there is material on lots of other "John Peacocks", some of whom are apparently notable). Would that we could count web-sites like the one you describe above as a source, but they're basically ephemeral and unauthoritative. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:51, 11 March 2011 (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.