Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theo Clarke

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. Sarah 11:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Theo Clarke

Theo Clarke (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Procedural nomination of previously-speedied article Phil | Talk 14:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: the article appears to present multiple justifications for notability, and furthermore has four inward links from other articles. I cannot understand why this was a valid speedy candidate. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Inbound links are not a justification in any way. If they were, then our vandals would simply crosslink their names from all the "bands" they formed. There are no actual claims in the article of notability, as each of the listed accomplishments is certainly admirable but not actually a position of leadership, public fame, or superior placement in the field. However, if you have a question, you are supposed to use DRV, instead of simply undeleting. HTH Geogre 18:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, he has certainly had a busy career but as far as I can see he is not notable for the purposes of WP:BIO. The Royal Society of Arts has 24,999 other fellows, and Google results are mostly Wikipedia mirrors. Demiurge 15:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I just checked, it's 6000 [1]DGG 03:51, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment this seems a gray area to me. Several companies started, some authorship, inward links, all together suggest notability. I would tend to favour shading toward delete if the subject is a longstanding contributor who wants not to have it (that's not an open and shut reason, but a shading). But I'm seeing enough notability to build a case for keep barring that. Note that a speedy was in my view, not warranted. This is an area where some discussion would be of benefit. withhold opinion barring more information. ++Lar: t/c 15:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete i'm gonna have to say while at first glance this guy has done alot... none of these honors/accomplishments are sufficient to satisfy WP:BIO guidelines.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 15:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: The subject of the article tagged this for speedy deletion, as he recognized, as others did, that the article fails WP:BIO, and he didn't write it or want it. The article was speedy deleted because it literally makes no claim to notability, which is a perfectly valid A7. Undeletion should not have taken place without the use of WP:DRV, which is a place that all users must employ, not just non-administrators, as there the validity of the A7 deletion could have been assessed. So, we have another week for outside sites to gather up personal details about a Wikipedian, another week of potential abuse. I'm not sure "HTH" or how this will allow anyone to "HAND." The article is a delete and was a delete. Geogre 18:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

George, I think anyone may remove a speedy tag without going to deletion review. Contested speedys come here. DGG or at least ask that it be done. 03:45, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

• Anyone wanna source it - thats really what notability is about, the ability to source it -- Tawker 00:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Per Geogre. Theo Clarke (the wikipedian) is entitled to his privacy. If he wanted it kept he would add further information to display his notability, he has not. He has expressed surprise that he is considered notable (not false modesty but genuine surprise) he has asserted the wish this page be deleted, and in this case his wishes should be respected. .Giano 07:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Actually, I'm fairly sympathetic to Giano's statement above. However, it would be a major change of policy to decide (a) that bio subjects are entitled to their privacy, and (b) the wishes of the subject are to be a consideration. As it stands, Wikipedia has rejected both those principles. (See Daniel Brandt and Angela Beesley). As I say, I somewhat warm to these ideas in cases of marginal notability. However, I reject the idea of special treatment for our Wikipedian friends. Either this bio stands (or is deleted), like others, on its notability/verifiability, or we make a major change policy for all bios.--Doc^g 09:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Doc is right, of course, and I did not mean to imply that this was a "Right to vanish" case that was up against demonstrated notability. Rather, I felt that the article's contents indicated a very successful career, but not one that had achieved break out "note," and that this combined with the subject not wanting the article to remain (or get userfied) made this a clearer speedy delete. (I.e. something on the fence like this should generally never be a speedy delete, as the authors and subjects are almost surely going to protest, and reasonably, but, here, we had no one stepping up on behalf of the article, except Phil Bosworth, and his actions were irregular.) Geogre 12:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
    • • I think that AfD was the right route here. Previous precedent is that the subject's request is NOT a valid consideration. I think we're reaching a fairly ground-breaking agreement that it is (if not a major one). I welcome that. But when something is as debatable as this, an open discussion is probably better than a quiet speedy (although I understand the motives of the speedy). However, Phil's actions were perfectly valid - speedies are really for open and shut cases; any admin should feel free to undelete any speedy and send to afd. I suppose he could have taken it to DRV instead - but then we'd just be having this same discussion in another forum. (And a forum which might well, in turn, have sent it back here).--Doc^g 13:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Thank Doc, I'm not just speaking as one of Theo's friends, I'm also saying "As the page stands it is non notable and even what little is there is unreffed", and from the google hits available, unless Theo himself chooses to expand the page (he has indicated that he won't) the page fails WP:BIO. Giano 09:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, a quick bit of google research on the name and some of the terms in the article provides quite a bit of verifiable info. So, I don't think we're dependent on the subject, actually. Someone could easily reference this, and probably expand it too. However, as to whether we'd want to keep it if they did, I really don't know.--Doc^g 09:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• The article at the time of the speedy made no serious claim to notability. That being said, I actually looked at this when it was so tagged and, purely on the face of the multiple but individually non-notable claims, chickened out and went to softer targets. So Endorse balls-y deletion since that should be the venue that this is being discussed in. The article as it stands still makes no cited claim to notability, and as such should be deleted unless more evidence is introduced. Nothing to do with "niceness" or "mateship" here, but in the event that it was a line ball, we should be nice to everyone as long as we retain our integrity. - brenneman 10:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, borderline notability, as admitted by the subject. Angela and Daniel B (no, not me, the other one) were, in my opinion, substantially more notable than this. I would have probably not been inclined to give my opinion if the subject wasn't requesting deletion - just another AfD bio - and if I had of, it probably would have been a weak delete. However, the borderline notability coupled with the expressed wish of the subject, who is acting in a decent way, has swung my !vote. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 10:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• FWIT, I'm comfortable with deletion in this case. But I give notice that I will cite this debate as evidence of a consensus that the subject's request is a relevant factor in deletion decisions, although not necessarily the decisive one. This precedent must apply equally to non-Wikipedians. On that basis, delete. --Doc^g 11:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• An important distinction to make, and well-stated. We consider the request of the subject, but it isn't the be-all-and-end-all, nor the Chop (reference to the card game Thirteen, no article sadly), nor a veto, or any other word you wish to use in this context. Probably equally-important is the way the subject goes about stating their intention - Wikipedians much prefer it when somebody rationally states their feelings rather than lawyering and being generally disrespectful. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Borderline notability case which the subject's request pushes over the edge. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 15:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, borderline at best. [ælfəks] 00:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I flagged this as a speedy because I do not think that I am sufficiently notable to merit an entry here. I am not concerned about its effect upon my privacy because everything cited here is already in the public domain and I think that it is all on the internet. I have not touched the article because I believe that this contravenes WP:AUTO. I am both warmed and touched that at least three people have considered it worthwhile to write about me (even if one of them did immediately delete his/her own factually correct addition). As a matter of principle, however, I think it irrelevant that I am an established wikipedian. —Theo (Talk) 20:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree with delete, disagree with speedy tagging, because the article subject is borderline enough notable (there doesn't need to be a literal statement "This subject is notable" for the article to assert notability, you know) that this was NOT a clear cut speedy. Disagree that there is any significant difference in privacy impact from it being on DRV or AfD after it was incorrectly speedied. In future, article subjects ought not to speedy tag their own articles. Perhaps WP:AUTO ought to speak to that more clearly. Am also OK with "subject's request is a relevant factor although not decisive" principle. ++Lar: t/c 09:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Borderline notable. Request by subject is something to consider; not the dominant factor here. +sj + 04:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bastique, Giano, Daniel Bryant, Doc G, not someone we need an article on, probably not notable on the merits, and subject's wishes as the tiebreaker if it's considered a borderline case. However, subject is cautioned to avoid any more achievements and accomplishments or they may tip the balance and we may be back here. :) Newyorkbrad 04:06, 25 December 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.