Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Vickers (academia)

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. Arkyan • (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Vickers (academia)

Steve Vickers (academia) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Tagged for CSD A7 speedy deletion by User:82.36.96.123, and then tagged for PROD by him when I removed the speedy tag on the grounds that there is an assertion of some notability. Reason given for proposed deletion: "barely notable, no reliable sources". I'm dithering a bit on this one: I dispute the no reliable sources claim (half the article is backed up by his biography on the University of Birmingham's website, the other half by an article from Sinclair User magazine). But the notability is borderline - he doesn't meet WP:PROF guidelines from his academic activities, but he wa sa major contributor to the ZX Spectrum, and did found a (not-particularly-successful) company Jupiter Cantab. --Stormie 01:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  • No vote - I'm undecided. Keep per the information provided by David Eppstein and Madmedea. --Stormie 01:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Really has done nothing beyond his one achievement with the ZX. If anything else about that topic needs to be said, add it to the main ZX article. --Jimmi Hugh 01:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - It would not be natural to include information about the ZX81 and Jupiter ACE in the ZX Spectrum article - purists will delete this information in an instant. --Frodet 09:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep - I agree with the previous editor: it is only right that the article be kept, if only for Steve's contributions to the Jupiter ACE and ZX81. I don't want to go down the line of "if you delete this, you have to delete that too", but it seems to be a good case to me...matt.smart talk/contribs 16:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 03:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Definite Keep As I see it, he does meet the PROF guidelines, quite apart from his earlier applied work. He has published about 30 papers in the major theoretical computer science journals, and directed doctoral students. The article was very much more substantial in earlier versions; the anonymous nom. (IP is an internet provider in the UK) has systematically deleted relevant material to reduce the article to the minimum, and then tried to delete the article itself. I have restored the parts which are appropriately sourced by the official university web page. DGG 03:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Additionally a second anon has made unjustified neg. comments on the article talk page, That IP is from .cs.bham.ac.uk. , which is Vicker's department. There's apparently an student there who does not realize that WP is NOT ratemyprofessors DGG 04:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Being the person who initially proposed the deletion of the article, I have to admit that there have been much more support and recent contributions to the article than I had considered possible. Therefore, I do not uphold my view that the page as a whole is irrelevant and needs to be deleted. Steve Vickers is indeed notable for his contributions to the development of UK home computers. By the way, I have never been a student of Steve Vickers, as it was suggested by some users, in an attempt to undermine my credibility. Anonymous editing is an important right in Wikipedia. Quite the contrary, I have a lot of sympathy and respect for Steve's achievements and contributions. However, I will still allow myself to contribute to the article and remove incorrect and unreliable statements. 147.188.192.41 15:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I apologize if it was taken wrong, but i was reporting what I saw in connection with what had been said.DGG 07:25, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Now that the evidence has been given, can we close this discussion and remove the deletion tag ?--Thomas Arelatensis 14:30, 23 April 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.