Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Wright (computer scientist)

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Wright (computer scientist)

Non-notable computer scientist, apparent vanity page; I have just a added link on the page to his CV[1], which I think establishes him a competent and well-qualified IT man, but fails WP:NN. BrownHairedGirl 12:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Has some real accomplishments but nothing to meet WP:BIO. JChap T/E 13:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Kudos for saving the leap second... erm, helping to save the leap second, but it looks like they haven't changed Greenwich Mean Time to Mancunian Mean Time in honour of it, and isn't enough to meet WP:BIO either. -- Slowmover 19:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

*Delete.  Can we hurry this up, I can't wait to see the look on his face... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.14.40 (talk • contribs) 
*Delete.  Looks like the "Time Lord"'s remaining moments of Wiki fame can be counted in ... leap seconds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.14.2 (talk • contribs) 
*Delete.  Delete, delete, delete. Say it with me people..."delete". This is of no value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.14.40 (talk • contribs) 
*Retain.  We need jokers like this to keep everyone else feeling superior.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.48.14.40 (talk • contribs) 

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 09:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for WP:VAIN and for failing to meet WP:BIO. Tychocat 21:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Hello Wikipedia folks. It's Paul Wright(computer scientist) here. The original URL (Paul Wright) is better now with a list of additional notable Paul Wrights. More the better :) If you want to delete this new page as well you are welcome to do so, the information contained within it is freely available elsewhere and easily googlable so it will not make much difference to myself or your readers either way. Not sure why the people that are doing this are not identifiable though? Please note that I have identified myself, including at the original creation of the article. It also seems strange for the anonymous initiator of this deletion to first add a link to my CV and then list the page for deletion immediately afterwards? Anyway, all the data in the article is correct and verifiable and passed the various tests including notability 6 months ago when it was created and accepted then; so I am happy with it, but if you would like to delete it please go ahead. Best wishes and keep up the good work but please encourage users to identify themselves so that the community can become more credible. Cheers, Paul Wright.

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.