Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Geoffrey Smith

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. Of the "keep" "votes," most were from very new users or anon users. Ian Manka Talk to me! 05:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David Geoffrey Smith

Generally non-notable geographer per WP:BIO. Major claims to fame in article are being "author of the Pennsylvania Geospatial Data Sharing Standard for Geodetic Monumentation" and "director of Geospatial Information Technology" for a non-notable company. —C.Fred (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Until there is some concrete thing he has done that is incredible, earth-shattering, and magnificent, he fails WP:BIO. alphaChimp ^laudare 16:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not meeting WP:BIO; in fact, it's a borderline speedy (A7). --MCB 21:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteIt appears he's a good citizen. It also appears he hasn't done anything to merit a wiki bio. Bayou Banjo 23:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)Wow. It looks like a bunch of folks got on wiki today just to find this article. 3 new users found it their first day on wiki and voted to keep it! I must have been wrong about this article all along. Bayou Banjo 04:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep as per the guideline 4 (The person has published a significant or well-known academic work). [1]] and guideline 3 [2] [3]Doctor Bruno 23:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Guidelines cited above are for academics (WP:PROF), which are still proposals. Because of their status as guidelines, the above citations do not alter my nomination. —C.Fred (talk) 00:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I have asked few question in your talk page for which there is no answer. It is 1000 times easier to delete an article, but as a Global Encyclopedia, our aim should not be in deleting articles (except Advertisement and Hatred articles) but in making articles. Doctor Bruno 05:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The question asked on my talk page was without sufficient context to obviously link it to this AfD. Accordingly, that discussion stays there and not here. —C.Fred (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - this individual is well known in geospatial technology, having developed agencywide architecture for federal agencies and having held leadership positions in the premier engineering and surveying organizations nationally and statewide. The only potential concern is the bio is short and potentially outdated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.241.81.239 (talk • contribs) .

Comment. None of the individuals currently recommending deletion appear to have any relevant background, knowledge or expertise in this individual's area of expertise (geospatial technology). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.241.81.239 (talk • contribs) .

Comment. It should not take knowlege in field to be able to recognize the article subject's expertise. Ultimately, the article needs to stand on its own (aided by the sources it cites). If the article can't explain that the subject is notable, then, for Wikipedia purposes, the subject isn't notable. —C.Fred (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Cornell, Ketterle and Wieman won the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physics for "the achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation in dilute gases of alkali atoms, and for early fundamental studies of the properties of the condensates". I have no idea what that means, nor do I know who Cornell, Ketterle and Wieman are, apart from this contribution to science. My mere personal opinion and lack of knowledge on this subject does not qualify me to suggest that they or their work is not notable. This should be relegated to domain experts for informed comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tenzing347 (talk • contribs) .

Comment If his work is so well known and important then several other sources should cite it as a reference. A

literature search reveals that this does not seem to be the case. Bayou Banjo 16:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - He holds or has held statewide office, with an appointment by Pennsylvania Governor Edward Rendell, per WP:BIO. Non-compliance with WP:PROF does not merit deletion, as it's still pending. If anything, the article needs some cleanup. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tenzing347 (talk • contribs) .

Comment - State governors make THOUSANDS of appointments a year. That by itself does not merit a bio. If this person is so important, why does a Google search yeild so little? I can google myself and get a lot more hits, and I'm not planning to start an article on myself, that's for sure. Bayou Banjo 16:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Remember that there is world out side Internet. As far as publications and media in languages that do not use the Roman Script is concerned, they may yield no result in Google. Hence just because some one does not figure prominently on Google (especially those from non English SPeaking Countries) it does not mean that he is not notableDoctor Bruno 06:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not sure what Bayou Banjo is searching on Google; a search on David Smith yields 227M matches, David G. Smith yields 82.5M matches, David Geoffrey Smith yields 11.9M matches, and I don't even want to go into the other permutations of Dave Smith, et cetera. It's starting to look like Bayou Banjo may have some personal beef with this individual, as opposed to any merit to his argument. This is not the appropriate forum for that kind of personal vendetta and begins to go into the realm of inappropriate article vandalism/controversy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tenzing347 (talk • contribs) .

Comment - Your outrageous accusations have no basis, you have absolutely no basis to accuse me of vandetta. Please familiarize yourself with WP:PA. You obviously do not know how to properly perform a Google search. Try putting your search term in quotes. You will not get many hits. Quit changing the subject, this article is cluttering up wiki. I do not know this person, and I've never heard of him until now. In searching for additional info, it quickly became clear that there wasn't much to find. That is precisley why the article needs to go. Bayou Banjo 23:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment. How many of those 11.9M matches are actually for this individual? If they all are, as you claim, then it's reasonable that 1% of the matches would be from major news entities or other verifiable sources (i.e. not blogs, personal pages, etc.). That would still be 119,000 sources to quote, and there are no references to major news/media entities in the article. Having a common name does not equate to notability. —C.Fred (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I believe this person, has distinguished himself, based on several items extracted from the information posted to the bio. I would submit as examples:
  • This person has demonstrated a leadership role in IT at Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin is one of the largest IT and advanced technology contractors in the world.
  • This person has demonstrated a leadership role in a $700M IT contract. That represents one of the largest federal IT acquisitions of the last 10 years.
  • This person has demonstrated a leadership role at a Federal agency, in developing its enterprise architecture. Specifically, this person has demonstrated leadership at the US Environmental Protection Agency. Mapping and environment are joined at the hip - for example, the commercial market segment leader in geospatial technology is named, not by accident, "Environmental Systems Research Institute". Doing this kind of work for the national environmental agency of one of the most powerful and technologically advanced nations on earth places him near the pinnacle of that profession.
  • This person appears to have been actively involved in the development of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for over 20 years. Modern computer-based GIS in its' current incarnation hasn't been around for much more than 20 years itself, placing this individual among its veterans and pioneers.
  • This person has demonstrated leadership at a statewide level, with development of statewide interagency technical standards, as well as holding statewide quasi-judicial office.
  • This person has several published works.
  • This person is a member of NCEES. NCEES is the national organization which sets national policy for the engineering and surveying community, and which defines the yardstick for professional licensure. Only a fraction of one percent of engineers and surveyors are ever eligible to be members of NCEES.
  • This person has excelled and demonstrated leadership in not just one field, but in multiple fields at a statewide and national level. --DawnTreader 03:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment It seems an extrordinary coincindence that the last 3 Keep votes come from users with no history of contributing to Wikipedia until today, whereas all but one of the established users is voting Delete. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. Just trying to estimate the odds, and like, wow. 1.2M pages on the english Wiki, and 3 newbies just happen to gravitate to this obscure one and edit in the same day. Amazing. Bayou Banjo 04:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - too many words; too few hard facts. Not-notable for me. BlueValour 03:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO. Killfest2—Daniel.Bryant 00:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. There's plenty more articles, far more skimpy, about far-less notable people, things and events in Wiki than this one... Besides, it does meet WP:BIO, IMHO. Get a grip, folks. --66.126.216.118 01:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

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.