Talk:Alwyn Pritchard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

I don't understand the clean-up tag. Mr Pritchard is a senior member of the British Government Statistical Service. To understand his importance, it is necessary to understand the work he is doing. Runcorn 20:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If that is true, then it might be the case that he doesn't merit a biographical entry in Wikipedia. See WP:BIO for relevant guidelines. 81.104.165.184 21:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

He is clearly notable. He is a British civil servant, senior enough to be listed in the British Civil Service Yearbook. It is curious logic to say that if he is doing highly technical work, he is not notable. Runcorn 11:49, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I refer the honourable member to my previous answer. 81.104.165.184 15:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

So is the anonymous editor saying that if I delete the explanation of what Mr Pritchard is doing, and just rely on Mr Pritchard's position as a senior British civil servant, he will be content?--Runcorn 19:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Mu. That is the wrong question. Understandably, features of someone's day-to-day work don't make for a biographical entry in an encyclopaedia, though you are missing the key issue which I have twice brought to your attention (and will now do so again), namely exactly which of the criteria in WP:BIO#People still alive Mr. Pritchard satisfies. He's not a politician, sportsman, actor or artist, and has not been prominently featured in nationally newsworthy events. Also, there's no indication in the article that the techniques he is using are new, are being applied in some new way, that he is responsible for its uptake outside the ONS, or that his work has gone down in the history of statistics. The standard "we" (tinw) have for most people is that, except for a few monarchs, it's not who you are, but what you've done. Encyclopaediae include people by accmoplishment rather than by rank. What the other editoy may have been getting at was that the article is too focused on his job, while it should be focusing on his achievements. 81.104.165.184 03:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I shall re-draft the article when I have time. Where outside the ONS in the United Kingdom would his work be taken up?--Runcorn 07:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:BIO makes no provision for civil servants. Is the implication that civil servants as a class are unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia? If so, why are there already many articles about civil servants? For example, see Category:British civil servants; while many in this category are notable for other reasons, many seem to have no greater claim to notability than Mr Pritchard. I have now clarified that he is using new techniques and is at least partly responsible for their uptake in other countries. It is far too early for his work to go down in history!--Runcorn 20:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course WP:BIO makes provision for civil servants, they come under the heading of "people". They get in based on their achievements, on a global scale, in terms of encyclopaedic merit. To answer your question, yes, the implication is that civil servants as a class are not in and of themselves worthy of inclusion. Just like journalists, writers, mathematicians, sportsmen, engineers, historians, and just about everyone else (perhaps short of the monarchy), they have to have done something worth documenting, which can be backed up, and will be of some interest to people outside their specific field, to merit their own article. So far, it seems there's still very little in the article that separates Pritchard from his job. Also, my IP address is clearly visible in my signature, there's no need to point out the fact that I'm an anon in your edit summaries - it tends to look awfully like trying to discredit other editors to make your own point more prominent. 81.104.165.184 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)