Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Clark Burt

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 Speedy delete. -- Longhair 05:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth Clark Burt

Seems to be WP:NN, one stray ghit. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 01:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete (db-bio) - non-notable; article asserts no notability. Fabricationary 01:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete no notability in article, unless being "a favourite of High School students" counts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable. Kalani ^[talk] 02:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as failing to meet WP:BIO and do not speedy as there are claims of notability, however amorphous they may appear.--Fuhghettaboutit 04:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:BIO - Alias Flood 04:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 06:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 11:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, no claim of notability. -- ReyBrujo 18:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy A7 as tagged, notability not asserted in article. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am a bit taken aback by the multiple statements above that there are no assertion of notability, and thus this is amenable to (and is currently tagged for) speedy delete. Is there some consensus on how specific assertions of notability must be to qualify?

Quoting from Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles which is specifically incorporated by reference in the text accompanying A7 at WP:CSD "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion." I think the following are assertions of notability, and are patently "remotely plausible" assertions of notability:

"a revolutionary educationalist, who changed the way many people think about technology...best known for his views and idea...He's been credited and cited in many informational essays..."

Can you imagine a professor who is a revolutionary educationalist, very infuential in his field, cited and credited in many scholarly articles; someone who would meet WP:BIO in spades, having this same article text written about him? I can. If that theoretical article was brought to afd, minor investigation would reveal that the same "assertions of notability" in this article, though vague and not very specific but nevertheless present, were true. We might have a call for speedy keep and expand. Here a little investigation shows that the professor is not notable enough for inclusion by our notability standards (I checked google and google scholar and found nothing) But do the assertions of notability themselves need to meet WP:BIO? I think not. Rather, the assertion of notability render the article unsuitable for speedy deletion, which is why we debate the merits more rigorously here. Please disabuse me of these notions. Until then I think speedy deletion of this article is out of process.

I would also note that speedy deletion does not serve us well once we have already each taken the time to visit this deletion debate. If the article is deleted, and then recreated with a bit more text, it can be tagged with {{db-repost}}. If it's speedily deleted, that tag is not proper because speedy deletion is by its terms not a deletion on the merits.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

For me, the difference between a speedy candidate and an "assertion of notability" is all about specificness. "Joe Schmoe is an awesome guy and everyone at school thinks he's great" is not an assertation of notability for the purposes of A7 speedies. "Joe Schmoe was awarded the Awesomeness Award in 1997 and 1999 by the International Awesomeness Society, and was named in Awesomeness Today magazine in August 2000 as Awesome Person of the Year" is an assertation of notability, which would then be verified and weighed in AfD. Specific vs unspecific is what makes the difference. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:25, 23 July 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.