Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Davison


 * 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. Mind matrix  01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Chris Davison
Hoax. Could find no relevant information via google. However, the giveway is that while a PhD student he "quickly created a name for himself, proving that any 3 points joined in a nearest neighbour manner, whose angles sum to 180 degrees is a triangle." JLaTondre 02:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2005-12-31 02:46Z 
 * Delete, per reasons above. PJM 03:58, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Possible speedy as attack page?   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  05:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete does not appear to meet criteria in WP:BIO and is not verified. Movementarian 09:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is a hoax, possibly a weak personal attack. -- (aeropagitica) [[Image:Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom.svg|25px|UK]] 11:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - hoax. If someone can leave a message on my talk page explaining why this is an attack page, I'll consider speedying it as one. But, it doesn't look like one to me. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. - NeoJustin 18:46, December 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nom should have speedy deleted this, as it is clearly a nn-bio and/or nonsense a hoax.  --C S (Talk) 12:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't meet the speedy criteria as it's not patent nonsense and it makes a claim of notability. -- JLaTondre 13:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi. Sorry I confused hoaxing and nonsense, although there's enough absurdity to make me label it nonsense.  Anyway, even if the article claims subject is important, it still qualifies as a speedy nn-bio.  The only reason nn-bio would not be a good reason is if some indication or evidence of notability was presented in article.  None is in this case.  For example, initiating a reading group is not support for notability, and neither is receiving A levels (not to mention his alleged result).  In other words, if you see an article that looks like an nn-bio but it starts out by saying the subject is very famous or important, it's still a speedy under nn-bio.  That's my understanding.  --C S (Talk) 14:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The speedy criteria disagrees with that. An assertion of notability is all that is required; not evidence. To quote: "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AFD instead". -- JLaTondre 18:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, it doesn't. Please take a closer look at Deletion_of_vanity_articles.  It notes that it is important to consider only significant assertions and the plausibility of an assertion.  Assertions of notability should be at least "remotely plausible".  Note that the more complete policy (not the snippet you quoted) says "An article about a real person that does not assert that person's importance or significance - people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society; people such as students and bakers are not, or at least not for the reason of being a student or baker. If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to VFD instead."  It should at least be clear from this that what is meant by "assertion" is quite different than what you mean.  Here assertion means a statement of some fact that would indicate notability, not an outright statement such as "he is important".  If we couldn't speedy articles that started with "X  is notable", simply because it asserted notability in this way, a lot of vanity articles would not get speedied the way they do now. --C S (Talk) 01:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * To quote Deletion_of_vanity_articles: "Only those articles where there is no remotely plausible assertion of notability should be considered for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion." Rejected speedies show up on Afd all the time because notability was claimed. But we're going astray of the main purpose of this page. If you want to talk further, why don't we move this to my talk page. -- JLaTondre 01:46, 2 January 2006 (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.