Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Pollard


 * 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. Reliable sources about the subject have been found and so the subject is notable. This person leads an organization and resources have been found for that. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy  ( talk ) 08:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Pollard

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsourced resume. Fails WP:BIO. Contested prod.  BradV  19:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep: The article has plenty of sourses in the "Publications" and "External links" sections. By the way, that's a pretty impressive list of publications, all the more because the variety of publishing companies pretty much rules out any WP:DUE issues. Both Routledge and Holt, Rinehart & Winston, at least, are well-known companies. The problem is that the sources have not been cited in-text yet, but that's where WP:ATD comes in handy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - He's pretty big in the educational community. No doubt the article needs to be punched up, but I have no doubt the sources are there. Joining with Cosmic Latte, not only are the publications by multiple publishers, but they are over a non-trivial amount of time. LonelyBeacon (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the external links are not reliable sources: one is the website of his own TLRP programme and the second is a website selling two of his books. I am pretty sure that his own publications are not reliable sources either, because they are primary sources, not secondary. – ukexpat (talk) 19:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd say that there's probably a good likelihood of his having been cited in secondary sources, though, and would oppose any sort of deletion unless a thorough search for these sources (in which I'd be happy to participate when I get a moment) comes up empty. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Notability has been established; this article doesn't belong on AfD. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - very notable professor. Note that he is the DIRECTOR of a department at the Institute of Education at London, not just a regular old teacher.  That alone warrants an article.  Also has lots of publications.  Just because they aren't visible on the web doesn't mean that they aren't usable.  Myrrideon (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —John Z (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is the director of a large research institute and is an author of highly cited academic works. GoogleScholar gives impressive citation results, with top hits at 176, 129, 126. Passes WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. per above. Along with Miriam David below, there's also Mary James (educator), of the same institute, which I just de-prodded.John Z (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is is just me, or are the drifts getting too deep for sled dogs? LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment MUSSH! - We'll get to Nome on July 15 or we'll die trying! (An inclusionist prayer?:  All AfD's lead to Nome.)John Z (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think I understand why this was listed on AFD.  plus next 3 changes were made by User:Andrew pollard who may well be the person who the article is about.  Just the same, I think he is a notable enough professor. Myrrideon (talk) 12:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused why people are voting keep on this article. The article is completely unsourced, and some of you appear to be basing your opinion on the contents of the article. This article needs references badly in order meet the WP:V and WP:BLP policies.  BradV  14:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is a reference. The Teaching and Learning Research Project, part of the Institute of Education.  The reference is this .  Follow that link and at the very top it says "Andrew Pollard, Director", with a photo of him.  Therefore, I hasten to say that he really is the director.  As I said, regardless of whether those works really are his works, the fact that he really is the director of such an institution is easily enough to warrant an article on him.  Furthermore, at least some of the works are listed on that site under "Publications" .  They also have press releases which could potentially be incorporated into the article .  At the same time, I understand how you feel.  I nominated a woefully inadequate article on T. K. Sukumaran for deletion and I got bullied over it too.  Some people here are cruel.  Myrrideon (talk) 14:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * All of those sources are his own website. That certainly does not meet the verifiability criteria. And I don't think anyone here is cruel, I just want people to do some research before commenting. I did, and that's why I nominated it.  BradV  14:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not his own website - it's the website of an organization which he heads, the Teaching and Learning Research Programme, run by the government essentially. So it's not self-published.John Z (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * keep as notable, but none the less, when someone who is head of an institute or the like publishes something in a publication from that very place or one of its units, it is not really independent. A certain amount of judgement does have to be exerted as to reliability, and whether it indicates notability. Honest people are careful about this, but not quite 100% of people in the world are exactly honest all of the time. But it is well established at Wikipedia that such non-independent but official sources are enough for the routine facts of a career. And if t he routine facts show notability, that's enough. DGG (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2008 (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.