Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Dixon (hydroponics)


 * 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. ansh 666 03:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Adam Dixon (hydroponics)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. This article reads like it was written by the subject himself (or someone close to him) as a means of self-promotion. The claims to notability are not actually sufficient to satisfy any of Wikipedia's notability criteria, and the award he won doesn't even have an article. – PeeJay 12:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 13:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 13:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 13:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's just a CV. Notability not established. Szzuk (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 *  Too soon : Not sure whether is a WP:COI self-promotion or not, but I did some google search in certain past ago, and the quantity are not very meet to the WP:BIO, maybe WP:TOOSOON for now. SA 13 Br</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can see that some pretty distinguished editors think that the page has not established notability. I might explain my spur for creating the paper was the UN award which I heard on the BBC and which had extensive coverage in UK media and no doubt in non-English media elsewhere. It is not quite correct to say that the award "does not even have a Wikipedia page". The young champions award is in fact part of the UN Champions of the Earth which has been running since 2005. 2017 is the first year of the young champions and Dixon is one of the six champions in this first round. This is a clearly a prestigious global award. As for "promotion", I was very careful when writing the page to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines in terms of stating facts that were sourced from one or more media sources and using a neutral tone. It was reviewed by Babymissfortune who is an experienced reviewer. Whilst I would be sorry to see my first Wikipedia page deleted, I have learned a lot in drafting it. Zosimos102 (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment When a reviewer reviews a page, it doesn't mean that the page is already acceptable for Wikipedia. When I reviewed this article, an AFD has already been created. I was supposed to place a notability tag but since there is already an AFD that questions the person's notability, there is no need to add that tag. I only reviewed the article, but that doesn't mean I support the page to be kept. Baby miss  fortune 12:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Neutral: I didn't seemed any COI issue per comment at above, so it should be either tag notability as biographies or deletion as too soon. <b style="color:red">S</b><b style="color:orange">A</b><b style="color:gold"> 1</b><b style="color:green">3</b><b style="color:blue"> B</b><b style="color:indigo">r</b><b style="color:violet">o</b> (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Update. It appears that the Shell LiveWIRE award also has a Wikipedia page, which is another argument for notability and keeping the page.Zosimos102 (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * That award may have an article, but I don't see any reason why winning it would confer notability on a subject. Same goes for the Young Champion of the Earth award. Other people have won the Champion of the Earth award in the past, but they all have other claims to notability. Adam Dixon does not. – PeeJay 19:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * With due respect to your extensive editing of football related pages, I think you ought to think again. If you look at 1992 births (of which Dixon is one), there are many sportsmen and women, including footballers for quite minor clubs (to take one example from many, Blair Anderson who plays for Coalville Town F.C). In comparison, Dixon is an inventor whose hydroponic system is an important innovation which may affect thousands of lives. "Dixon’s cost-effective, rapidly deployable product is now being piloted by the World Food Programme in refugee camps to support the supply of fresh produce to thousands of people in what are often uncultivable, barren locations." to quote the UN citation. The UN prize is global, and winning it should be seen as equivalent to a major sporting prize. I have nothing against football or sport, but think you need to take an objective view of what counts as a notable prize.Zosimos102 (talk) 15:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have previously expressed misgivings about the notability criteria being too inclusive when it comes to football - there are too many articles on minor players such as the one you mentioned. Therefore I don't think you can use that as an argument against my objectivity in this case. Furthermore, "What about X?" isn't actually a valid argument here. Just because there are a lot of articles on minor footballers doesn't mean this article has any more right to exist. There were plenty of stories about Dixon at the time, but what about since? If this technology ends up saving the human race from extinction, fair enough, but at the minute, he's won a meaningless corporate award and a bit of grant money, that's all. – PeeJay 15:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The United Nations Young Champions is not a "meaningless corporate award". Granted, there are many business awards around some of which are more dubious than others, but the UN is a major Global institution (not a corporation) which is not so easily dismissed. My argument is that this should be viewed just as important as a major sporting award (or indeed media award), which we would both agree should be included. I cannot predict the future, but another governmental body, Finance Wales certainly sees great potential in the technology reflected in its valuation of the Phytoponics company at £2m (and that was before the UN Young Champion award) and its reported funding under the accelerated growth programme. Cardiff university has also supported it (as evidenced by the news items on the subject). So, I would argue that it is not a "meaningless corporate award". Maybe it won't save us from extinction, but the technology has the support of some influential international and national institutions that to me demonstrate notability. Would you really place your judgment above the UN and the Welsh government (Finance Wales)? By the way, I was not arguing that minor football players should be deleted, since they have a lot of public interest. I was just using this as an example to get you to think again about your initial judgment about what is notable and what is not.Zosimos102 (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2018 (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.