Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Woodhams

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Woodhams

Stephen Woodhams (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Nom for del'n, but withhold vote pending better perspective. GTest:

331 of about 664 for "Stephen Woodhams"

Sounds closer to notability as article on his business than on him; such prizes are not like Nobels or Pulitzers, but usually for a trade to practice self-congratulation, and duly ignored by outsiders (at the least) after the winners' 15 minutes of fame; what are stds for notability in this area? (Of course self- or fan- promotion is not ground for deletion if material can be reworked -- but what is there to say beyond this ad-brochure-like copy, whether biz or bio?)
--Jerzy•t 07:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Notable gardener, who has won serious recognition, and author. (For the information of non-UK readers, Medals awarded at the Chelsea Flower Show are not trade self-congratulation prizes but prestigious awards made annually. The Chelsea Show is one of the leading such events in the world - read the article to see its importance.) Emeraude 13:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Careless of me to ignore the role of gardening in English culture; i should think it that tho not a Pulitzer, this would be something like winning the Super Bowel. Authors are a dime a dozen, but sometime their books and their own notabilities are eval'd on AfD by looking at Amazon sales-ranks. Could someone with a grasp of Amazon UK, & what those ranks would mean, undertake that investigation?
    --Jerzy•t 21:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    
• Neutral I agree with the nomination that the notability is divided between the business and the man, and individually each is really weak; collectively the notability is marginal. What about those awards? Trivial or not? I have no idea sitting here on the left-coast of the colonies -- maybe the prestige should be mentioned in the article. Perhaps a rewrite could explain why he is notable other than the notability of his clients. I think that this is a weakness of the Wikipedia system as I understand it; there is no middle ground between keep (and forget) and delete. Is this true? --Kevin Murray 18:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
  • AfD can at least arrive at a decision to merge, &/or to refer to WP:Cleanup, and other maint tags might apply. (IMO a merge during AfD would usually disrespect the process, and merging after it was discussed on AfD with little approval would be take more discussion or unusually convincing arguments, but in general, AfD is only one tool, and many, many measures are available in parallel with, or independent of, it. I may be biased in even considering that the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion debate for on Nalgene and the results it drove could be instructive, but weigh in the fact that the first few votes were stronglysolidly and IIRC vehemently Del.)
    --Jerzy•t 21:28 & 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    
  • It should also be borne in mind that ideally an AfD Del vote expresses the view that the topic named is inherently unencyclopedic, on the logic that otherwise reducing it to a stub would be appropriate. E.g., if the article reads like an ad, the probem is not that, but (possibly) that the thing advertised is either non-notable or non-verifiable. I'd guess that the standards for what constitutes consensus to delete reflects some kind of a point of balance between the collective outrage levels of the deletionists and of the inclusionists among dedicated editors. But the presumption of keep-worthiness is IMO a reflection of the options that remain after a de facto decision to keep, including the potential for saying "this hasn't improved since the last two deletion debates, so can those who said it was redeemable still say so with a straight face?" If you think this on a probably notable topic, so that the article is likely to be sufficiently improvable, IMO you should vote "keep" without needing to be sure, and if you're wrong, we'll eventually figure that out.
    --Jerzy•t 23:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
    

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl ^(talk) 02:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Award winning gardener at the largest flower show in Britain. Also works have been published. Mallanox 02:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep only after replacement of COPYVIO content The Chelsea Flower Show is a contest with substantial significance in British culture. It may well be the most important gardening show in the world. Being a multiple gold and silver winner here seems to be sufficient encyclopedic notability as a gardener. However, the current article content appears to be mainly a copyright violation of http://www.woodhams.co.uk/ {see text pulled up through "Key Achievements". Bwithh 02:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep He is a notable gardener. His books are widely held in libraries, and have been translated into Dutch, German and Spanish. I agree the article should be cleaned up. --
• Keep Anyone who competes at the top of tier of their sport or area of interest is inherently notable. Assuming good faith on the references, it would appear reliable and supported by evidence. Tarinth 13:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep notable enough if won a british national competition Alf photoman 20:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep-Notable enough for the awards. --TeckWiz^TalkContribs_@ 23:21, 2 January 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.