Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Whaites


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Alan Whaites

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Alright, there are many references on this page but only two of them refer to him and one of them is just some search engine. The other one isn't a direct reference to him and doesn't give that much info. Also, can you see where it says 'Author: Alan Whaites'? Hmmm... Island Monkey talk the talk 14:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I am the subject of this article and I would very much like it to be deleted. The author tag has been added by others and whenever I have looked at this page it has contained inaccuracies of fact. I don't mind fair comment on my work but I don't think that this article adds any value. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AW1976 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 *  Delete Neutral. Nominator should note that subject has a respectable presence on Google Scholar which he seems to have missed. A marginal case. In such a situation it is acceptable to take the subject's views into account. Therefore delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment. With one weak delete !vote, I might have been inclined to go ahead and punch this "delete" if the subject had made a deletion request through OTRS but User:AW1976 could be anybody. Add to that the nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet of an indefinitely blocked user. This one needs more input. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hum. Suspicious indeed. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Keep Assuming AW1976 has nothing to do with the subject, I find there is plenty notability and I also found references on books.google --DeVerm (talk) 03:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Comment There has been reverts in this article done by nom before entering this AfD... but the reverts do not appear correct to me. If AW1976 is indeed the subject of the article, his wish to get it deleted might be caused by those reverts. If he isn't the subject of the article, he might even be yet another sock of nom. Could somebody more knowledgeable than me about dealing so much reverted material have a look at the article history? --DeVerm (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC).
 * Machiavellian manoeuvrings are not unknown on Wikipedia. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete. Hard for me to have any opinion about the reason this is at afd, the nom or machiavellian dealings. I looked on the web, I looked on google books and I looked on google scholar. There isnt anything of note on the web or google books, there are 115 notes on google scholar. I don't think its enough. Szzuk (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's be specific. h index in GS is 9 in a not particularly well cited field. Respectable but not outstanding. I remain neutral. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete as WP:OR. Regardless of who User:AW1976 is or is not, regardless of what that user wants, this page contains virtually nothing about the subject, focusing instead on the ideas contained in his writings. Since this page is about a living person, we have a pretty high threshold for sources, and none of these provided (or that I saw when looking) directly detail the subject. No profiles, no bios, no interviews. As a result, the page editors have been assembling this bio gleaning bits of information from arguably reliable secondary sources. This meets the definition of original research. BusterD (talk) 11:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - a curious article that is more an analysis of the subject's views (and even more so before the recent excisions by AW1976) rather than a bio. Also, WP:BLP rightly insists on high sourcing standards for BLP articles. In this case the sources needed to meet WP:BIO are simply not there. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2011 (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.