Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Spence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 per WP:HEY standard. Bearian 19:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Spence

Chris Spence (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

WP:BLP. User who asserts that he is the subject has taken issue with the accuracy of this article and has requested deletion on the talk page. There are personal facts contained in the article that lack clear attribution, but I'm merely nominating it as a courtesy. Evb-wiki 17:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I suggest clearing up the factual inaccuracies to get it right. 85.142.226.26 (talk • contribs • logs) 18:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Factual statements would need to be verifiable. --Evb-wiki 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Factually accurate or not (the Talk page comment is not clear about what facts are disputed), I agree that this individual is not notable. There are a smattering of Google results indicating that he has an interesting job, but that isn't notability. No reason to keep this article given that the subject apparently objects. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: - the original reasoning for keeping this article was the noteworthiness of the best-selling book on amazon.com published by Harper Collins. It was on this basis that the article is up there. If the subject did indeed object he should have raised an issue months ago when the article was first posted. -- 85.142.226.26 (talk • contribs • logs) 17:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As he is a new user and not a regular contributor, it is doubtful he was aware of it months ago. --Evb-wiki 17:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Response: - He was aware months ago of the article because he was told about it and made no complaint at the time but only became a member to come online stating recently the facts were inaccurate and misrepresentative. Checking the history shows that he has subsequently changed some information to improve the reporting. Concerning the other entry about the subject not being noteworthy for having achieved anything notable, at the start of this article shortly after it was first posted it was asserted that the reason for the noteworthiness of the subject was the best-selling book. This was accepted. So now it appears that the main issue here is to get the facts right. (JB) -- 85.142.226.26 (talk • contribs • logs) 17:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Where is the evidence that he was told about the article months ago? Anyway, he can still object to inaccuracies and request deletion if it is not fixed. And, not only do the facts have to be correct, they must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. As it stands, the article violates WP:BLP. --Evb-wiki 17:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Response - On the 4th of August he became aware of the article. This can be proven through email records. He only became a member in early October. This is TWO months later. How was the information suddenly accurate on 4th of August and then in October its not. Follows no logic at all. The book can easily be reference on http://www.amazon.com by doing a search for 'global warming' or 'chris spence'. What else do you need? (JB) Template:USER3 18:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Response - Of course that much is obvious. But the point is when this article was first listed it was determined on Wikipedia by the reviewer that the subject was indeed noteworthy because he had written a best-selling book with Harper Collins. Same reason JK Rowling is noteworthy for having written Harry Potter. This evidence can be found at http://www.amazon.com . 85.142.226.26 (talk • contribs • logs)} 18:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you think is not factual or neutral now following the corrections by the subject. If you point out this can be improved as required. (JB) Johnobrien98 (talk • contribs • logs) 18:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Response: The information concerning Mr Spence is verifiable via amazon.com and google.com. The article should state just the facts. But not sure what is the issue now? If it is whether the subject is noteworthy then this issue was discussed and resolved in August 2007 when the conclusion was the book made the subject noteworthy. If it concerns the factual verifiability of the information it now appears Mr. Spence has edited the page to ensure that the page it is factually correct. Not sure, what you want to do? Are you requesting more information to prove that the subject is noteworthy beyond amazon.com or what do you want exactly? (JB) -- Johnobrien98 (talk • contribs • logs) 20:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • OK - it will be done. The only things being left in there are the book, which can be verified on http://www.amazon.com , and the work related stuff which is verifiable on the page of New Zealand Drug Foundation and the International Institute for Sustainable Development. -- 85.142.226.26 (talk • contribs • logs) 22:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. Everything is now factual and can be verified. The parts that the subject took exception to as not being neutral are no longer in the article. 85.142.226.26 (talk • contribs • logs) 22:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Cited or not, there isn't a sufficient assertion of notability to warrant keeping. Caknuck 15:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - per WP:HEY. I just added information from nine different sources. I only looked for sources that address Chris Spence in the context of global warming. His global warming opinions have not been well received and likely other reliable sources will provide more biographical information on Chris Spence as part of their coverage of his opinions. Also, he is thirty seven years old and has done other things over the past seventeen years likely to have received coveage. There is enough independent reliable source material to write a verifiable article. -- Jreferee t/c 16:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, Given the additional sources and coverage added by Jreferee. That's good enough for me. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 17:46, 19 October 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.