Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darren Spedale


 * 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 no consensus. W.marsh 22:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Darren Spedale

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

probable vanity page of non-notable lawyer Calliopejen1 01:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete- pd-self on Image:Darren_Spedale.jpg Says it all. Bundle that image into this AfD if you would. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 01:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. He seems to be fairly widely cited and critiqued on the issue of same sex marriage and well or poorly it's worked in Scandinavia.    Article certainly needs to be cleaned up, though, to expunge non-WP:RS info, expound on the area for which he's notable, and just generally not read like a bio his publicist would write for his book jacket. Mwelch 02:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep appears to be notable in a special field. No reason not to have a small photo if the copyright is ok. DGG 06:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Its not really a small photo: Full resolution (798 × 1200 pixel, file size: 194 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg). The point was the article's creator also uploaded the picture of himself (tagging it pd-self "personal photo of author"), so that's the evidence of self promotion. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 13:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have much doubt that the author of the article and uploader of the photo is either the subject hoping to promote himself or someone who is acting on behalf of the subject to promote him. But that's not really the point of a deletion discussion. As long as the person can be shown to be genuinely notable (and he does seem to be; not wildly so, but mildly so) and the article, as it stands, is not a copyright violation or guilty of some other speedy-deletable offense, then the article should remain and simply be cleaned up such that it no longer reads simply as self-promotion, but rather as a genuinely informative, encyclopedic article about him.  And the photo's size can easily be scaled down for display in the article.  Mwelch 20:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So are you recommending that we keep this because someone will step forward and fix this? As I see it now, its practically the same as the last revision by the original author, after a year and a half of edits. If someone wants to commit to rewriting it, then by all means keep it, otherwise I see no need to keep this around any longer. It can always be re-created with better content. You're right about the photo, it can be replaced with a smaller version, I just figured its fate (whatever direction) should be paired with this article.  -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 20:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll get to it if/when I can find the time to adequately research the guy, and if someone doesn't beat me to it. But even aside from that, yes, I'd say to keep it and wait for "someone" to come clean it up.  That is, in fact, the exact purpose served by the myriad of cleanup tags we have here: to bring attention to articles that need such service.  There are countless articles around here that are pretty much crap in their current state.  But again, as long as the subject is genuinely notable and they don't violate WP:CSD, the correct solution is not to delete, but to tag them for clean up.  Simply "it needs to be cleaned up" is not a really valid reason for deletion.  Agreed with you that the photo's fate should be the same as the article's.  Mwelch 20:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, fairly notable within his profession so I believe this does pass WP:BIO as currently sourced. RFerreira 06:59, 10 June 2007 (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.