Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denis Mitchison

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 of the debate was keep. W.marsh 05:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Denis Mitchison

There is no evidence of any kind presented to establish this person's significance or notability, just a lot of genealogical information. I attached a {{prod}} tag, and this was removed with the comment "reverted" so I've brought it to AfD. Specifically: the article fails to meet the WP:BIO guidelines. It does not establish, or provide evidence for, its subject's significance. Wikipedia is not a collection of genealogical information. Delete. Sliggy 22:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, unless this is not the Denis Mitchison a Google search indicates has been regularly quoted in the British press on the subject of tuberculosis. Monicasdude 22:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep (obviously) meets WP:BIO guidelines and some more. He is a notable professor of microbiology, now retired, but it is easily verifiable. It's not as if we have an article on every bloody soap star that's had 5 minutes on Hollyoaks, oh hang on, we do. Secondly, you can be important genealogically; that guideline is to stop you writing about your nobody great-great-grandmother, but if you have lots of famous relatives you fit into a jigsaw. — Dunc|☺ 22:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment, on your first point: the article provides no evidence to substantiate his significance, it just says he is a "British bacteriologist". If there were some evidence of his significance or notability included in the article I wouldn't have brought this AfD. I do not accept your second point about some genealogies being OK, but others not. As it stands the article fails WP:BIO. Sliggy 23:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, we have thoudsands of articles on subway stops in Bangladesh, so why not keep this article. Edit by Jim62sch
• Delete unless evidence of notability is provided in the article. dbtfz^talk 23:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
• keep clearly notable. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 23:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be grateful for reference(s) or evidence for this opinion. Sliggy 23:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

As would I. dbtfz^talk 23:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to the father's article, notable family but not individually notable per the evidence presented. Just zis Guy you know? 00:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. A search of verifiable articles through my local library shows that there are 11 mentions of this fellow in relation to tuberculosis. That makes him verifiable and notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 01:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above --Khoikhoi 02:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless expanded and notability established. I don't see anything distinguishing him from the average professor. Stifle 23:26, 13 March 2006 (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.