Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rowan Trollope

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. PeaceNT 03:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rowan Trollope

Rowan Trollope (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A Senior VP of a large company. Still doesn't make him notable. Corvus cornix 00:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep and cleanup. Seems to easily satisfy WP:BIO given the many reliable sources. Could use a major wikification, but I have no reason to doubt his notability. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per TenPoundHammer. Temperalxy 00:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The press citations are certainly sufficient.DGG 01:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • With due respect, delete. "A senior VP of a large company", so what? That's not an encyclopedic inclusion criterion, despite all those sources ("press citations"). -- Ekjon Lok 01:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It's appalling, but do keep it. Symantec is more notable than most corporations. But boil all the fluff down to about a single paragraph. Whether he prefers oils or acrylics is unimportant to the wide world. -- Rob C (Alarob) 02:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep but boil it down to one or two paragraphs and remove the inconsequential and vaguely promotional sounding stuff. "Rowan is an innovator in the area of Internet Security, and holds numerous patents and patents pending for advanced security technologies." Innovator must be the most bullshit word in the English language, and applying for or receiving patents is not notable. The US patent office will grant software patents on essentially trivial "inventions" and leave the hard work of sorting out what's valid to the courts, who've recently raised the bar on that and will likely be throwing a lot of patents to the sharks. Deranged bulbasaur 05:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per TenPoungHammer's comment. Daniel 5127 05:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per TenPoundHammer's comment. This article was only AFD'd because Rowan Trollope commented against User:Daniel J. Leivick on the Josh Warner page... Also, on a complete side note: the courts will not throw any patents to the sharks unless they are first challenged (the courts can't make a decision about something they were not asked). Shaunco 06:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I know that, but my point was that the existence of these essentially unvalidated patents is not an encyclopedic fact. It's an attempt to snow under people who don't understand how the system works, and it doesn't belong in the article. I don't know how you came away with that false impression of my understanding of the court system. In any case, the offending statement has been changed. Deranged bulbasaur 07:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I beg to differ. Ths article was AfD'd because I read it after the Daniel J. Leivick comments. I would never AfD something other than on its merits, as I see them. Please assume good faith. Corvus cornix 16:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep because of the rules, though it hardly seems encyclopedic to me. JJL 14:36, 23 May 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.