Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Hartley (computer scientist)


 * 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 (WP:SNOW). (Non-administrator closure.) Northamerica1000(talk) 12:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

David Hartley (computer scientist)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Persona not notable. Not widely covered, held and constitutional post or recipient of any award / honour.  Cheers AKS  06:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 09:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 09:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 09:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 09:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep he's in Who's Who, and Debretts and is the Director of the National Museum of Computing.  Also FBCS, CITP. Barney the barney barney (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That first honor is meaningless. See this. --Calton | Talk 02:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
 * another editor who confuses the British and American Who's Whos. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC).


 * Strong keep. Is this nomination some kind of joke? Fellow of the British Computer Society is an automatic pass of WP:PROF, never mind everything else. -- 101.119.29.9 (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as clear above. Nominator is advised to study WP:Prof and WP:Before before making further nominations in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Strong Keep. The subject of this article meets Notability (people) criteria in general terms as mentioned above. It also meets the additional criteria for a biography because he has made widely recognized contributions that are part of the enduring historical record in his field of computing, namely:
 * Development of Autocode for EDSAC 2
 * Development of CPL
 * Director of the University of Cambridge Computing Service
 * Chief Executive of UKERNA, the body that provides the United Kingdom Joint Academic Network (JANET)
 * Member of the Computer Board for Universities and Research Councils
 * Member of the Prime Minister's Information Technology Advisory Panel
 * Twice a Board Member of the British Computer Society
 * President of the British Computer Society
 * and is currently Museum Director of The National Museum of Computing.
 * --TedColes (talk) 12:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep And I second Xxanthippe's advice to the nominator. --Randykitty (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep It is a WP:BLP violation to falsely suggest that such a prominent person is not notable. Andrew (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep In addition to TedColes' list of achievements, here are a couple cites beyond what's already in the article, which refer to those achievements (lest anyone think we're just his fan club): InfoWorld July 27, 1992 lists numerous landmarks while (sort of) calling him the world's first IS manager; bio in A History of International Research Networking, under "the people who made it happen"; a sampling of papers and references on Google Scholar. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sometimes, when editors have made a mistaken nomination, they have the grace to withdraw it to save the time of other editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:23, 6 January 2014 (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.