Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Reffin 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 Keep. (Note: I am NOT an admin. My closing action is authorized by this policy section) Bwithh 19:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Reffin Smith

Brian Reffin Smith (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Looks like an autobiography. Is the guy notable? -- RHaworth 18:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well - Criteria apparently satisfied: "The person made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field."

"The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person.1

• This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries"

"Painters, sculptors, architects, engineers, and other professionals whose work is widely recognized (for better or worse) and who are likely to become a part of the enduring historical record of that field." —Preceding unsigned comment added by LWHero (talk • contribs) author of the article

Dear god : I thought it would be "signed" automatically. Terribly sorry. Hardly anonymous though, since you could easily trace it. And yes, I am the author and subject - nothing to hide - several people asked why I wasn't in the English version of Wikipedia when I was in the French (and no I didn't instigate the French article) so I wrote something. Those in the relevant fields are obviously able to change any false information, to add critical reviews or views, etc. What on earth is the problem? Do you dispute that I fulfill one or more of the criteria for "notable"? On what grounds? LWHero 21:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. Being a winner of the Prix Ars Electronica is probably sufficient for notability. The article needs to be cleaned up, with the references in standard form (see the various citation templates) and the reviews removed, but I think the subject is notable. Tevildo 20:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as Smith has written "prominently" about computer art since before there was much of it at all. e.g. Satisfies the "enduring historical record" criterion in that respect. LWHero, if you are Prof. Smith, please make yourself aware of our conflict of interest and autobiography policies. When you write your own article it is more difficult to judge freedom from bias in the end result. --Dhartung | Talk 20:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Ok thanks to both the above - references templated and reviews grudgingly deleted. Point taken about conflict of interest, but I hope you agree that it is now neutral, and still verifiable. Though I am stunned to note the amount of unverifiable "opinion" in articles I consult daily on here... I had not seen, before, that it is "strongly discouraged" to write one's own article; and can see why. However, as I said this was just an extension of an existing article on French Wikipedia that was not started by me, though I did amend it. LWHero 21:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• KeepPer Dhartung I'm convinced on notability; however, there should be some sources referenced from the article to meet WP standards. --Kevin Murray 02:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Kevin, can you be more specific about what sources you'd like referenced, and I'll try to do it...LWHero 06:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Seems notable. More explicit references per WP:BIO would be good. --- Safemariner 07:14, 7 January 2007 (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.