Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Harrison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete.  Grue  29 June 2005 20:30 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Harrison

"Andrew David Harrison" returns 48 hits on Google - that alone would recommend him as non-notable. He has no hits for scientific publications or journal submissions. It is implied by the article that he has not completed any graduate work or degrees. Just another academic. Potential vanity. Delete. jglc | t | c 17:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete He needs to invent something before we bother to give him a page. In a certain light, I've done a lot, too, if you allow me a moment to write out the proper words. Allowing it to stay when he has done pretty much nothing worthwhile is opening the door to further vanity pages. --Kulindar 28 June 2005 08:24 (UTC)
  • Keep I just went through and updated many of the unlinked keywords. I'm sure if it stays longer more will be added to it with time.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.21.122 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 16 Jun 2005
  • Note: this user is the creator of the page in question, along with several other non-notable (to me, at least) Arizona State University pages. jglc | t | c 18:39, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn vanity. --Etacar11 18:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability. RickK 05:17, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nn - DS1953 01:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Scientists are not inherently notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:26, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Attention: This is not my first edit. I do not edit only ASU pages. I do not know this Andrew Harrison. zellin 05:31, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
    • Then why is he notable enough to be kept in Wikipedia? jglc | t | c 13:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't agree with you that you must have prior knowledge of every single notable individual in Wikipedia. If you did, there wouldn't be a point to creating biographies, would there? (unsigned comment by 129.219.6.5)
        • I agree, and I admit that there is a lot of merit in learning about that which had previously fallen outside one's scope of knowledge. However, one of the strengths of a VfD is that it allows people who do know about a subject, or can do research on the subject to verify and validate its status as a Wikipedia entry, can comment and tell other users why the entry should stay. By you saying "I do not know this Andrew Harrison," it implies to me that you don't know him in any sense, and therefore cannot judge whether or not he is subject to inclusion according to WP:BIO. jglc | t | c 04:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • You don't make any sense with your rebuttal. Based on your analysis, you just eliminated yourself from authority to pass judgement. You don't know him in any sense, therefore you cannot judge whether or not he is subject to inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.21.122 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 23 Jun 2005
          • It is the author's and supporters' burden of proof to demonstrate that the entry is worthy of inclusion. This is not "innocent until proven guilty". jglc | t | c 07:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
            • Is that so? If we are not to follow an analogous "innocent until proven guilty" principle, then what is your justification for inclusion of item #4, under Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, which explicitly says, "When in doubt, don't delete."? That sounds to me like an "innocent until proven guilty" doctrine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.21.122 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 24 Jun 2005
              • Deletion is distinctly different from nominating something for a VfD. jglc | t | c 20:13, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Note: When I said I don't know him, I meant I do not know him personally, the same way that I don't know Saddam Hussein or George W. Bush, who are both notable. Wikipedia is not paper. zellin 18:35, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsigned votes and votes by anonymous users and by accounts just created on the day of the vote

Keep I typically have an aversion to deleting entries immediatly after they are created. I'd like to give this one some more time to mature before deleting it right away. --Sjakkalle 20:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Note; This comment was actually created by 129.219.246.107 on 20:03, 16 Jun 2005. However, Sjakkalle has been known to use anonymous IP's to edit. I am uncertain as to whether or not this comment was actually left by Sjakkalle.
    • It is not my vote. I never edit at this time. The times I edited anonymously were before I got my username and account. According to Geobytes 129.219.246.107 is based in Tempe, Arizona. I am based in Bergen, Norway, at present using IP address 129.177.61.120. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep. PER Wikipedia instructions on the handling of vanity pages, "An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous." (Wikipedia vanity definition page) This means that being non-notable is not a basis for deletion. Further, this article includes pertinent accoplishments by the individual, and does not list irrelevant information such as hobbies, or aspirations. An official Wikipedia definition of unimportance includes: 1. Patent nonsense, 2. Original research, 3. Unverifiability, 4. Unexpandability, 5. Small number of contributors, 6. Does not belong in Wikipedia. This article satisfies none of these conditions except possibly (but far too early to say) 4 and 5. Wikipedia policy specifically states: "An article important according to the above guidelines should not be deleted on the basis of it being 1. Insufficiently important famous or relevant, or 2. currently small or a stub." Additionaly, a google search I performed returned many hits relating to this individual's academic career. Therefore, an article this new does not fall under the grounds for deletion. All information included in this article should be considered encyclopedic for inclusion. Postpone deletion until sufficient time has passed in order to establish unexpandability and a small number of contributors, and at that time we can determine whether we shall declare it unimportant. --CatTracker 22:28, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • Note: This is CatTracker's first and only edit or comment. Also, "being non-notable is not a basis for deletion" is just plain wrong - being non-famous is not a basis for saying an article is vanity. Being notable is one criterion for being included in an encyclopaedic listing. jglc | t | c 22:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep: Jglc, I just read the vanity page and the concepts of fame and notability are used interchangeably. That means that either being not-famous or non-notable are not reasons to delete an article.

This is, of course, flatly wrong. Wikipedia is not... Genealogical entries, or phonebook entries. Biography articles should only be for people with some sort of notoriety or achievement. - Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not →Raul654 06:36, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep It's kind of basic and simple, but notable enough where I can't say they didn't make contributions in their community. I'd like to see this expanded after the VfD discussion concludes. 68.108.201.212 5:44, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This is user's 7th post or edit, his second non-minor edit. His only changes have been to ASU-related entries. jglc | t | c 13:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Jason, regardless if it's his 7th post or edit, it is a vote. You sound like you are trying to discredit people based on how active they are. It's as if you feel that only people who have time to sit on Wikipedia all day and add or edit things are the only people who should not be scrutinized. This is far from the intent and mission of Wikipedia, and you come off like you are trying to discourage and disgrace everyone who does not agree with your point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.21.122 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 17 Jun 2005
        • No, user, what I am doing is simply pointing out facts. jglc | t | c 22:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Yes, you are pointing out facts - partisanly. You cannot honestly deny that you have been bias in your fact pointing. That is a very dangerous position for a supposedly "fair" administrator to take. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.21.122 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 18 Jun 2005
            • First off, I am not an administrator. And yes. I am pointing out partisan facts. Point out any truths that you feel will support your case, as well. I suspect that there are very few, as arguments for inclusion of this article have not focused on proving his notability, but rather on arguing over the question "who is notable?" and for inclusionism in Wikipedia (which I find warranted in some examples: for example, my feelings as to school listings in WP have changed dramatically; but not here). jglc | t | c 07:44, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- Doesn't sound like vanity...it makes sense that the author wasn't this person compared to that person Jordan Shocklk (I think was how it was spelt). MLSfan0012
    • The edit history says this vote was made by 205.188.117.10. Please log in before you vote so we can be sure it's really you and not someone pretending to be you. --Etacar11 20:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I agree! This article should be kept. It does not appear to be a vanity page.
    • (unsigned vote by Mantics, whose only edits are to this VfD) --Etacar11 22:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • So, are you telling me that my vote does not count? --The_Dopefish 22:55, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • Check out WP:SOCK --Etacar11 00:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
          • Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. --204.17.26.4 03:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) --The_Dopefish 03:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) ( forgot to log in, sorry)

Please Keep this page up. Andrew is a true scholar!!!!

  • (unsigned vote by Mikemontano, his only edit) --Etacar11 22:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Keep From what I can tell this guy isn't trying to become famous from this page, it is just a good brief blurp about what he was able to accomplish in a short amount of time. --Shancox25 18:28, Jun 2005 (MST)

  • This user's first edit. --Etacar11 00:45, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Individual is accomplished and relatively notable. /(unsigned comment by 129.219.6.5)

Keep - An accomplished and notable individual. Was included in several newspaper articles and the list of work conveys an individual worthy of inclusion.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.