Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Pearson (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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

David Pearson (computer scientist)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Seems to be a vanity article produced by the subject. The sources may not support the statements being made, or fail to report on the subject with more than a passing mention. An IP claiming to be the subject (24.207.103.36) has asked that it be deleted. signed, Willondon (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can't find any evidence of academic notability in the article or in the academic literature, and I can't find any evidence of general notability among the many bad references in the article or in my own searches. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * SURE YOU HAVE READ THIS ARTICLE, MR EPPSTEIN??
 * YOU ARE NOT ONE OF PUTIN’S DISINFORMATION FOLK ARE YOU ?
 * LOOK, I DON’T BELIEVE IN THE INTEGRITY OF WIKI ANYMORE. JUST DELETE THE ARTICLE! Poolroadrunner (talk) 06:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * EXCUSE ME? TWO FIRST CLASS DEGREES FROM LONDON AND IMPERIAL. A PHD FROM CAMBRIDGE AND AN ARCS……ONE OF THE FIRST PIONEERS IN LARGE-SCALE SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, BY REF. ONE OF THE PIONEERS IN GLOBAL INTELLIGENT RASTER-BASED COMPUTER GRAPHICS, BY REF. AND A PIONEER IN START-UP TECHNOLOGY FOR AN ECONOMIC AGENCY WITH A BUDGET OF $1bn+, Scottish Enterprise, BY REF.
 * NOW MR EPPSTEIN, WHAT MORE ACADEMIC AND GENERAL NOTABILITY WOULD YOU LIKE, BACKED UP BY 25 REFERENCES?
 * I INTEND TO PUBLISH THIS AND YOUR AWAITED RESPONSE WIDELY. THANK YOU. Poolroadrunner (talk) 06:44, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Find your Caps lock key first. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * FUNNY………MR XOR. WHAT A THOUGHTFUL RESPONSE! Poolroadrunner (talk) 03:26, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * MR. EPPSTEIN, I AWAIT YOUR RESPONSE RE WHAT CONSTITUTES ACADEMIC NOTABILITY. SO THAT I CAN PUBLISH IT WIDELY WITH MY MORE NOTABLE “ACADEMIC NOTABILITY” FRIENDS. SHOULD GIVE THEM A LAUGH. COME ON, BE BOLD AND FOLLOW YOUR PREDJUDICES! Poolroadrunner (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reads as if written by an inept PR operative. Claims he has a first class degree for his PhD at Cambridge, but Cambridge does not grade PhDs (correct me if wrong). GS cites hard to identify as there are many with similar names. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC).
 * NO, READ AGAIN. FIRSTS CLASSES CAME FROM IMPERIAL, ETC. EVERYONE KNOWS A PHD IS A PHD! 24.207.103.36 (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * PLEASE READ CARRIEARCHDALE REVIEW OF 1 JUNE 2014. EDITORS ARE INCREASINGLY BIASED/INFLUENCED/NOT TOO HELPFULL/UNDERMINING WIKI INTEGRITY.
 * WHY ??? INFLUENCE? Poolroadrunner (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * MR XX, YOU ARE INEPT, I’M AFRAID. PLEASE EXPLAIN YOURSELF. Poolroadrunner (talk) 02:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per David Eppstein's reasoning. I'd say the only person undermining the integrity of Wikipedia is the editor trying to use it to promote himself and is willing to abuse multiple accounts to do so. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Fine. Delete whole article. Poolroadrunner (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * MR. GPL93, PLEASE SEE MY RESPONSES TO MR EPPSTEIN ABOVE. CAN YOU EXPLAIN YOUR UNWILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT “ACADEMIC NOTABILITY”, SO I CAN SHARE WITH MY ACADEMIC NOTABLE FRIENDS, AND WE CAN ALL HAVE A GOOD LAUGH! I WILL PUBLISH YOUR CONSIDERED RESPONSE WIDELY TO THEM.
 * JEEZ, THE INTELLECTUAL QUALITY OF WIKI EDITORS THESE DAYS BEGGARS BELIEF……. Poolroadrunner (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't take much intellectual quality to realise that writing in capital letters is a bad idea. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, when I submitted my thesis, I thought it was good, though maybe a little weak in parts. But I didn't have any more time to spend buttressing, so before submitting, I converted it to all caps. You wouldn't believe the difference that made.  signed, Willondon (talk)  01:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Willondon The pro move is to actually write it out in crayon. Mine was only for an MA so the standards may differ but I've found that the more childish you appear, the better. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not pass the relevant notability guideline. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Poolroadrunner has been blocked as a sockpuppet (SPI Here). GPL93 (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia and to stop notable acedemics from laughing at us. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone else. When an article can only be defended in the terms seen here, you know it's about a non-notable subject and is of no value.  RobinCarmody (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2022 (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.