Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Snowdon (second nomination)


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 12:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

David Snowdon
deletion was already suggested in June 2005, cleanup tag since June 2005, still an extremely short and unwikified text, not linked by any normal Wikipedia article; keep and improve votes obviously don't make any sense unless you are improving the article yourself Deleteme42 21:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve votes (like this one) make plenty of sense. I know that this is Wikipedia where everybody is equal, but you could fit everything I know about epidemiology into my navel and still have room for a lot of lint. I wouldn't know how to even start improving this article, but sooner or later someone who does know what they're doing will find it. Until then, I'll pass the buck. Trying to delete stubs on notable subjects displays a fundamental lack of faith in the process here. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If an article is neither linked by other Wikipedia articles nor would be of any help for someone creating a proper article there's no value in keeping the article no matter how notable the subject of the article is. Otherwise, I could easily find an area where hundreds of notable people without Wikipedia articles exist and create articles consisting of no more than five words for each of them (Mister Foo was a bar.) - would you vote for keeping such articles? And it seems in this case the AfD made much sense - after nearly a full year with the cleanup tag the article still was bullshit, but only 15 minutes after my AfD someone improved the article to a reasonable stub proving the value of this AfD (and making it obsolete). Deleteme42 16:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If they were genuinely notable people, then yes, I would want to keep them. There's nothing wrong with stubs, and if a page in an under-covered area doesn't have any inbound links, chances are that the page will acquire some once people start more pages in that area. Honestly, I don't understand your logic here. If you have a problem with our cleanup procedures, take it to WP:CU instead of abusing process here (nominating articles to spur growth is a violation of WP:POINT).-Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me make an example: Players of the second German soccer league are considered notable in the English Wikipedia according to WP:BIO. I will take a random season from the 1980s and create for every player an article only consisting of the unwikified text Foo Bar was a German soccer player. Are you promising to vote keep if any of these get an AfD? Deleteme42 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's continue this discussion on my talk page. Deleteme42 17:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed.-Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep (and improve) -- Snowdon's PubMed listing is relatively brief (50 or so papers) but he has several publications in high-quality clinical journals eg Ann Intern Med, Neurology, Ann Neurol, JAMA. Espresso Addict 00:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Edited to add: I've added some of these pubs to the entry, plus some info on the Nun Study (which, incidentally, is described under the entry for Alzheimer's disease). If Snowdon isn't considered sufficiently notable, then perhaps this material could form a stub entry on the Nun Study which does seem notable in Alzheimer's research (eg featured on cover of Time). Espresso Addict 01:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; the Nun Study is notable; he was the director. &mdash; RJH (talk) 19:37, 2 June 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.