Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Simpson


 * 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. While it is normally not appropriate for a participant to close an AfD, it is abundantly clear that this person meets the basic inclusion criteira, and the basic conditions of WP:SNOW have been met and exceeded, and there is no constructive debate occurring. Therefore I am closing this as a keep per WP:IAR. (non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)'''

Bruce Simpson

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

Reason Tercero (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

~Serves little if any real information outside of propaganda and self interest. The page is simply a biography of a totally unremarkable man and it appears it was created by Mr. Simpson for simple self promotion to sell his products. I'm asking that Wiki remove the page at it's convenience.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Retain This Article: Bruce Simpson is a notable person in several fields, including internet business and rocketry. He is also a prominent personality in the New Zealand internet community. The accusation that the article was created by the subject is simply not supported by the article's history; several people have contributed to it. The article could do with more content, but the same applies to many WIkipedia articles, and is certainly no grounds for deletion. (I am not Bruce Simpson, have never met the guy and don't even live in the same region of NZ.) --Pakaraki (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Article is properly sourced, subject seems notable. While it could use some cleaning up, that is not a reason to delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions.   —Beeblebrox (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   —Beeblebrox (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, he's fairly well known in the New Zealand IT community due to his long-standing website Aardvark.- gadfium 07:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * note I've tried to clean up the article's WP:POV issues and added another source, an article from The Guardian. I think the evidence of media coverage from the other side of the world refutes the nominators position that this man is "totally unremarkable," and unless there is some sort of evidence that User:Kotukunui is in fact Bruce Simpson, the idea that Mr. Simpson wrote it does not hold water either. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - It could do with a bit of a tidy but subject it notable enough to rate an article - SimonLyall (talk) 07:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - article has been improved to an acceptable standard, and notability is clear. dramatic (talk) 10:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability on the subject has been clearly established and defined and article meets WP:BIO. Razorflame 14:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, he's a locally known personality in NZ only. Also, there seems to be a controversy regarding Mr. Simpson and his "business" dealings, specifically with the website and member of www.pulse-jet.com. According to the members of this site, Mr. Simpson engaged in some business of collecting money and not delivering promised engines. There is also a significant slant to this article that pushes Mr. Simpson as contributor of internet software and government hardware, which appears to be based on unsubstantiated claims. For instance, the reference to Mr. Simpsons "cruise missle" on http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3302763.stm, suggest that Mr. Simpson searched for funding for a non existent product, and "In late 2003, however, Simpson ran into tax difficulties, and ended the project. He later claimed that his tax problems were the result of a government attempt to shut him down.". Again, it reads like Mr. Simpson and his claim to have "invented" a cruise missile was another fabrication intent on generating revenue. There is no verifiable content to Mr. Simpsons boastful claims, and the article in Wikipedia is not helpful or insightful about a significant personality that deserves recognition for a notable, history worthy achievement. It's self promotion and doesn't belong in Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tercero (talk • contribs) 14:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether he is telling the truth or not is irrelevant. The bar for inclusion is whether or not he has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. That threshold has been more than met. The other issues you bring up are reasons to improve the article not delete it. Frankly, I don't see any claim that he invented a missile, it seems clear that what he did was to construct a missile with parts he purchased over the internet. That was a notable act, and that is why this article is appropriate for Wikipedia. Your claim that it is self-promotion remains wholly unsubstantiated. Plenty of articles have point of view problems without actually being written by their subjects. Relevant guidelines: WP:V WP:N WP:RS Beeblebrox (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is relevant and does not meet the criteria for inclusion on wikipedia. You can't make up facts and insert them as truths. The problem with Wikipedia now is that a lot of people deface the site, insert unsubstantiated "facts", or include articles that serve little if any education. This happens to meet those criteria. Wikipedia is already viewed as being a tool of fabrication by some, and stating that "Bruce made a cruise missile from off the shelf parts" is a whole fabrication. Outside of that, he helped start a web company.....so. Lot's of people started web companies in the mid 90's. Most of them went bust. Congratulations Mr. Simpson you created a news aggregated site along with 700 other people who had the exact same idea. Nothing came of it. The missile article is the most misleading though. Mr. Simpson never actually made the missile. His statement was "it's possible to create a missile from off the shelf parts". My statement is "eventually, teleportation will be as common place as ipods". Possible perhaps. But hardly news worthy, or insightful. Yes. It is possible to create an IED. Doesn't mean that parts you grab off the shelf work exactly as you imagine. That's why governments spend billions and test there ideas for years to get the weapons right. There's little if any impetus to keep an article based on 1 single verifiable event (creation of a company made and sold/given away 10 years ago) that isn't even in existence, and does not or did not contribute the greater knowledge of mankind. This argument is turning farcical. I'm sure that it will be decided in the next while without the input of several of Mr. Simpsons immediate NZ supporters. Tercero (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC).


 * International notability is clearly evidenced by the coverage in reputable foreign media (The Age in Australia, BBC and Guardian in UK). Which raises the question as to why this article was nominated for deletion. --PeterHewett (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep His DIY Cruise Missile project has been covered in multiple major independent news publications and therefore clearly meets the general notability criteria. His 7am project appears notable as well, based on the sources. It is probably better to group these projects here under the idiosyncratic inventor than to give them their own articles. However, those claiming that the subject is also notable as an NZ internet personality should provide sources, as there are currently no sources given regarding the Aardvark website. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:SNOW Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "several of Mr. Simpsons immediate NZ supporters." I'm not sure if this was a backhanded attempt to suggest that the "keep" voters know or are affiliated with Mr. Simpson. I can't speak for the others, but I for one hadn't heard of him before this AfD, and I live in Alaska, a loooong way from NZ. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And again, I reiterate. Facts are he's of local interest in New Zealand and has little significance to the English speaking world, the people pushing for his "KEEP" are apparently from NZ making this a biased, unbalanced argument of vitriol that serves little purpose. The article has been nominated for deletion because the facts included in the article aren't facts. They're stories, a type of belief. Mr. Simpson never made a cruise missile. Because it was picked up as a news story doesn't substantiate the facts (please provide references, pictures, and details of the actual missile in question if you're going to include it in the article as a fact). The fact is Mr. Simpson does have a shady past regarding his business dealings. The fact is Mr. Simpsons 7am.com is an issue of the past, and has little to do with internet history. There's hundreds of articles on Wikipedia exactly like this. They're deleted all the time. Appearing on an episode of Junkyard Wars 8 years ago hardly makes him a superstar. It's nice that he has a hobby making pulsejet. It's hardly Wikipedia worthy reading. Tercero (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC).
 * It appears you don't want to understand what others are trying to tell you about this. I'm not from New Zealand, have never been there, and didn't know anything about this guy before I saw this AfD. The inclusion policy of Wikipedia is coverage in reliable sources. This guy has been covered in NZ, Australia, and the U.K. That's all that matters. No matter what you think of him as a person or as a businessman, he has met Wikipedia standards to have an article. If you wish to dispute the particulars of what is in the article, the place do that is on the article's talk page, which contains no real conversation from you or anyone else, just a note from me on the article's issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Prominent person who has received regular news coverage over the last decade or so. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - My views and arguments on why the article does not meet (IMHO) Wikipedia inclusion are outlined above. Please feel free to include why you believe the entry should be kept or deleted. Please keep the comments directed at the article and not at me as the nominator. I'm not at issue. The article is. Thanks. Tercero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tercero (talk • contribs) 17:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My comments do relate to the article, and specifically refute your points. Also, this is the third time you have posted a "delete" vote, you don't have top preface every comment with another "vote." Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment In fact, the only person suggesting delete, repeatedly, is the nominator. Tercero, are you aware that the nominator of an AfD should not "vote" at all, because their position is already clear from having nominated? Also, are you familiar with the notability guideline, which is the main criteria used to determine whether an article should exist? Everyone has made it clear why the article's existence is appropriate. In such circumstances it's not unusual for the nominator to withdraw their nomination. For the record, it also wouldn't matter if the subject was only covered in depth by New Zealand-based independent reliable sources, that would still make him notable - you don't have to be internationally known to be notable. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think at this point a Speedy keep would be appropriate. I won't do it myself since I've already expressed an opinion.- gadfium 21:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'm saying that if you actually take the two seconds to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability you'll find that it more than meets the requirements asking for deletion. And again, the majorities of the "keep" are all from NZ. It's a biased argument. And again I have to say please keep the comments directed at the deletion process. Not at me personally.
 * Comment The nominator has now twice removed my last comment, and I've restored it twice. Tercero, please note that there are very few situations in which it's acceptable to remove another editors comments, and this isn't one of them. My comment above is an honest question about whether you are familiar with deletion policy and procedures, it is not in any way a personal attack. Even if it were, the appropriate response would not be to edit out my comment, rather you should take up any issues on an appropriate Wikipedia complaints page. In regards to your continued argument that this discussion is biased by the presence of several New Zealand editors: editors from New Zealand are in fact well-placed to judge whether another New Zealander is notable, which is why this article was listed in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions, which is where I for one saw it. I've never heard of the subject before this time, and the opinion I have given here is based purely on the sources available. Please assume good faith. Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:59, 29 January 2009 (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.