Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Pitchcock


 * 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 of the debate was delete. HappyCamper 03:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Alfred Pitchcock
Fabricated entry with no references and no value - Delete Tim Fellows 22:36, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: NN-Bio. Nonsense, really... KC. 22:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete pending references: I gave the author benefit of the doubt on this one, and put the "unreferenced" tag on here, but it does seem to be pure fiction. --MisterHand 22:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Patent nonsense. Flyboy Will 01:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Josh Parris #: 01:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have now added references to back up the article, which can be verified by reference to Church records.


 * Sorry to have gone about this in the wrong way, but, stupidily, I accidentally posted the article before I'd mentioned the most important aspect of Alfred Pitchcock - that is, his design for a more efficient type of stirrup. It has often been argued that the old design resulted in undune pressure on the instep area of the foot, and, over time, can lead to various medical problems, including excessive pronation of the feet.


 * I'll have to check some of my medical evidence, and then I'll finish it off.


 * Sorry for any inconvenience. -- Unsigned comment left by Archibald Wednesday
 * What are you talking about? There isn't a single source listed on the page Pitchcock's notability (the stirrup invention)!  --MisterHand 12:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Um, what else do you want? I've given the Church records, and now I've checked I've given medical evidence, and also links to pages with descriptions of the areas of the feet that could be damaged, and that Pitchcock intended to save. (Sorry for not signing the last comment, btw, I'm a bit new to this, as you might have guessed)

Um, and, sorry, but can you clarrify what you mean by "Pitchcock's notability (the stirrup invention)!" - Archibald Wednesday 12:16. 20th December 2005


 * Delete - neither reference cited (further reading) mentions Pitchcock. No evidence anywhere to suggest that he is anyone.  Similarity in name to Alfred Hitchcock suggests a hoax. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 13:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, yes I know neither of those mention Pitchcock, they're about the areas of the foot that the old stirrup design damaged, and that Pitchcock's design protected. As far as I know, Suffolk Church records aren't online at the moment, and so I can't provide a link to them. As for his similarity to Alfred Hitchcock - that's partly why I've mentioned him. One of the reasons there has been interest in Pitchcock is because his name is similar to Hitchcock. In all honesty, an alternative stirrup design is quite boring, and I would have ignored him, has it not been for the comical similarity of his name to Hitchcock, and it is in this way that most people will come across him. I'm sorry I can't provide more references, but he is quite an obscure figure, and there aren't many sites that contain obscure local history on the internet - Archibald Wednesday, 1:41, 20th December 2005
 * If, by your own admission, he is an "obscure figure," then he has no place here on Wikipedia. See Notability.  --MisterHand 20:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete non verifiable Jcuk 20:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In reply to MisterHand: I'm sorry, but I do not agree with your last statement at all. I don't want to get too heated about this, but, I feel that I should defend myself by quoting Wikipedia's first of the five unchangeable pillars which states that "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." I think the word "specialized" is important there, since it does suggest that Wikipedia goes beyond including every day knowledge that can be Googled and found anyway. Notability, on the other hand, is a controversial topic anyway - and indeed, the article you cite contains numerous references on why Pitchcock should be included as well as why he should not. As it states, if he is not important, no one will search for him, and, as such, will not constitude a significant server load. Indeed, having read that, I feel even more so that this is a valid entry for Wikipedia.

Now, I'll admit that Pitchcock is an obscure figure, however, I don't see that as a reason for not including him, nor the fact that there is very little about him on Google - if anything that should be a reason FOR including him. Now, I also know that he is perhaps not the most important figure in the history of the world, but I still think he should be included:

1.) He is an historical figure in the town of Bungay, and is known in the surrounding areas. Indeed, he is viewed upon in rather a sympathetic life, as a voice of common sense that was ignored (despite being right about his alternative design), and this is something that many people in the surrounding areas feel they can sympathise with.

2.) His alternative stirrup design, although unsuccessful does present an interesting thought - after all, his design was superior, but, due to poor "marketing" if you want in the middle ages, it never took off. It's quite an interesting parallel to modern life and shows that "marketing" has always been important.

3.) The similarity of his name to Alfred Hitchcock presents him as a slightly humorous figure, and does provide a wider interest for people - I don't doubt Wikipedia is browsed by people looking for articles that attract their attention and curiosity, and I believe he does that.

4.) I also think his re-design of the stirrup is interesting in light of contemporary events, mainly the Peasants Civil War. It does reflect the contemporary attitude that things should not stay the same - admittedly, on a much smaller scale that the civil war, which believed the fundamental basis of society should change, but it does suggest that attitudes existed at many levels of the peasants psyche. - Archibald Wednesday 09:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. I accept it is probably verifiable/verified, but he is utterly, utterly, non-notable and fails WP:BIO. Stifle 00:36, 24 December 2005 (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.