Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dave Green

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 ^talk 02:35, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Green

Moved here from Speedy, but does not meet criteria for a Speedy delete. I'm not voting Manning 01:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Sufficient notability. Pburka 01:55, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 08:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Another "a writer for" magazines that employ freelancers liberally. Now a newsletter pusher. Ok. What is distinctive, unique, important, influential here? Just another writer. Geogre 15:48, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per Geogre. --Vizcarra 07:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. He was in Amiga Power and other magazines too! Plus, he's an alien! (Or at least, that's what they claim. I've never met him.) — JIP | Talk 16:37, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• As much as it pains me to say it, Delete. AP had hundreds of writers, barely any of which will ever be notable enough for inclusion here. He wasn't even a particularly memorable or notable writer for the magazine compared to people like Stuart Campbell, Jonathan Davies or Jonathan Nash. --Stevefarrell 20:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Geogre. Dcarrano 13:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity/promo, nobody in particular. Agreed 100% w/ Geogre. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:31, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - notable and well-known in British tech circles. The article could do with some fleshing out but by its by no means vanity. Dave Green writes NTK, which is a notable UK technology publication and co-author Danny O'Brien was deemed notable enough for inclusion. Qwghlm 23:07, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. Danny O'Brien's case is different. He writes a weekly column for the Sunday Times, not sporadic freelance writing for two magazine that no longer exitst. --Vizcarra 19:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not established. Indrian 19:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• keep: Dave Green is one of the most notable commentators on tech events in the UK. He has his finger on the pulse of things, always has something funny witty and acerbic to say. A compelling journalist. Voting to delete him would be like saying 'delete Hunter S Thompson: he only wrote about Hells Angels once back in the '60's'. So yanks dont know who the f**k Dave Green is: everyone else does. he is as much a feature of contemporary Internet journalism as Cory Doctorow etc. (unsigned by 81.2.112.241, just 1 contribution, this vote)
• keep. Very notable. A fixture in UK Internet journalism (unsigned by Geeklawyer, only 3 contributions, 2 on article Dave Green, 1 here)
• Keep. Undoutably notable in UK Internet field. Been around for years. NTK, NotCon, xcom, Open Tech, etc, etc. 13:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC) (User:AlanFord)

• Keep. Recycle when we run out of paper. Paul Beardsell 18:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately server space cannot be recycled. (unsigned by Vizcarra)

Of course it can! But see this. Paul Beardsell 23:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

True, there is no limit on the size of an article or number of topics because we're not limited to physical constraints of paper encyclopedias. However, servers cost money. And everytime you get an error message because the servers are overloaded it should remind you that non-encyclopedic topics shouldn't be on here. There is no "recyclable list" so the best thing is to delete articles that shouldn't take up space. I don't know if Dave Green is notable, it may be notable in his community, but the article doesn't explain how. Writing freelance to magazines that have disappeared and being on committees to organize conferences and being friends with Danny O'Brien does not implay notability. He does seem to have fans or friends who have voted with no previous record of contributing with wikipedia. Is that why he should have an article? --Vizcarra 00:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree but if I did then I would point out this VfD is longer than the article you want deleted. Your comments alone are longer than the article you want to delete. So next time you get a server overloaded message... Paul Beardsell 01:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

However, keeping this article would justify the inclusion of every freelance writer (how many are they? tens of thousands?) Every owner of a website (millions like his "snackfood" site) and other hundreds of thousands of people that helpt put together (the thousands of) conferences around the world, thus requiring much more server space than many times the size of this VfD article. So, hopefully my remarks will not go in vain and save server space in the long run. --Vizcarra 02:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• keep, UK internet celeb. Edward 19:04:58, 2005-07-26 (UTC)
• Delete, Not notable enough. Additionally, the claims citing NTK are void in my opinion, since it was in fact Danny O'Brien that did the lion's share of it, as witnessed by the recent lack of content. Daniel Smith 20:51, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• keep, (can I vote for myself?) To be honest, the page doesn't really make me out to be particularly notable - if it makes any difference, I've edited it so it sounds less like I was "just a freelancer" but in fact a valuable and influential member of staff (!). But ultimately, I suspect it comes down to whether you consider NTK sufficiently notable or not, even if - apparently - Danny does "the lion's share" :) Dave Green 11:17, 27 July 2005 (BST) (User:81.136.233.18)

You can vote, but the vote won't count because you don't have enough contributions to the wikipedia (there's a determined number of edits necessary before being able to vote). It's easier to argue NTK to be notable, but harder to argue you to be notable. You are not exactly a celebrity outside of the UK (as far as I am aware). And those in the UK haven't provided much information in the article to justify you to be notable (other than saying that "yanks don't know who the f**k Dave Green is).

Even if David Green is unknown outside the UK that has never been a criterion for inclusion/exclusion. Many Wikipedians are in the UK and they need an encyclopaedia too! And there are countless articles on those unknown outside the USA but we are not using that argument to delete those articles. Paul Beardsell 10:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, however it has to be clear why he's famous in the UK and the article is not doing that great of a job. Organizing OpenTech: "an informal, low cost, one-day conference about technologies", writing a newsletter, having written (freelance) for two extinct magazines is not newsworthy. --Vizcarra 19:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

No offense, you seem like a great guy and you seem to have had many accomplishments, but so have I and I certainly wouldn't write an article about myself. --Vizcarra 16:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Vizcarra, if that is so please do write an article about yourself. Paul Beardsell 10:48, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

That would be vain on me. I prefer to write about other people :) --Vizcarra 19:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Both NTK and OpenTech are core parts of the UK tech community, and including one of the key people in both addresses, in part, the US-centric nature of Wikipedia tech bios. ianbetteridge 14:49, 01 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Not sure I should get a vote, but Dave has actually written the majority of NTK for all of its history. I've mostly concentrated on the New and Tracking sections. --Dannyobrien 05:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Commment: How ironic that this page justifies having an article about David, much better than the article itself. Somebody cares to expand the article? --Vizcarra 18:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

There's this article that explains inclusion of biographies Wikipedia:Criteria for inclusion of biographies

• Keep. I just looked up Dave Green to find out who he was, and what else he had done. Jeremymiles 19:13, 2 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.