Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hirst


 * 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 keep. However, as the page seems to flout WP:AUTO, I have taken the liberty of userfying the page and moving it to User:DanielHirst/bio. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł blah } 15:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Daniel Hirst
Was tagged as a CSD, but I find the article asserts enough notability to warrant proper AfD debate. Abstain. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 08:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. 809 Google hits, and director of research at an institute appears to be something significant. His name also seems familiar, but I can't remember where I heard or saw it. Johnleemk | Talk 12:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep adequate notability for INTSINT, ProZed etc. Dlyons493 13:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable. Zordrac 00:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

you are thinking of damien hurst


 * Very Weak Keep with a large BUT. Look at the contribution history - the article was obviously written by Daniel Hirst himself. Coming from academia, this sort of self-aggrandisation seems entirely inappropriate, and I think unless we can get someone who knows about this subject to write an unbiased peer-reviewed article, we would be better off having no article at all. Articles such as this undermine the integrity of Wikipedia Twrist 18:02, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Q: is D.H. notable enough, strictly looking at the facts from his bio? A: Yes. Q: how notable is D.H. if 850,000 articles were written already, and nobody other than himself has bothered to write an article about him? A: not that much, apparently. What is worse, I saw almost instantly this was an autobiography, I didn't need to look at the page history. That's why I find the argument used by Twrist even more compelling: as far as Wikipedia's integrity goes, this is not a good option. GregorB 21:20, 5 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.