Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dean Gratton


 * 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. As noted by another admin in the relist comment, most of the Keep comments are not very convincing, and they are outnumbered by the more cogent Delete comments. Since articles on this subject have been repeatedly recreated, I will be create protecting this title. RL0919 (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Dean Gratton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article was deleted at AfD in December 2012, twice recreated and deleted in 2013 under Dean Anthony Gratton then, presumably because recreation was blocked, created again in the current incarnation by a new single issue account. Admittedly, the article is far less promotional and self-serving now, but the subject remains non-notable. The only suggestion of notability is an article in the town newspaper saying Gratton was awarded an honorary doctorate, but strangely doesn't reveal the subject or the college that awarded it. I can't find any other online evidence to back up this claim. No evidence of any other reliable independent in-depth coverage about Gratton. Time for it to go, a second time, in my opinion (his wife, a social media personality, has similarly had her account recreated under a different name to the one she is known as, to avoid a block). Sionk (talk) 22:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This is Dean Anthony Gratton and I would gratefully request that user Sionk reach out to me via my website (rather than make my email address public) to address this AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.31.175 (talk) 09:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:37, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - This subject fails this criteria and has I can not find any real sources to show that they pass WP:GNG. Josalm64rc (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, Per above, I don't find any sign to show the subject is notable Alex-h (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak keep He has published several books with highly-rated academic publishers, and was editor of a significant part of the Bluetooth specifications. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Verbcatcher (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - fails WP:CREATIVE.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Gratton has authored academic books and is noted for his work with technology. He is also credited as a director and producer on IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9087865/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinAndrewMoon (talk • contribs) 07:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)  — KevinAndrewMoon (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Struck due to ban evasion.
 * Note that this is a returning sockpuppeteer, who wrote the prior (deleted) article. Sockpuppet investigations/Opn800. Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Simply publishing books does not make someone notable, and working on notable software does not make someone notable either. Where are in-depth book reviews published in reliable sources, or the independent coverage of his importance to the bluetooth project?Pontificalibus 13:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete.  In context, this is an advertisement. I suspect "honorary doctorate in Psychology" is likely to mean one without any actual academic work awarded by a pseudo-university.    DGG ( talk ) 15:54, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. Guy (Help!) 08:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Published author and columnist; appeared in his local press with several stories and is known online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.251.171.164 (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Several academic publications and mention in the press as well as numerous references online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.214.134 (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The decision on whether to keep the article should be based on Gratton's notability and on whether there are reliable sources to create a worthwhile article. The current state of the article and any suspicions that Gratton has contributed to it or has inappropriately pressed for its retention are not valid considerations. We certainly should not attempt to punish him by 'salting' the article. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * This is the third time it has been recreated, after being deleted at AfD. It's also been plagued by a long history of sockpuppetry. All a clear violation of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. I expect this will be more of an embarrassment to Gratton if he genuinely hasn't written the article himself. Sionk (talk) 06:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability derived from several local press articles plus extensive Google results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.53.31 (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ’’’Keep’’’ Searched Google for him and found notable references to include press, interviews and TV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.203.2 (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Books, articles, notable sources across Google and YouTube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.148.110.16 (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep In his local press and online with loads of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.105.172.44 (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I really have to say, if this article is kept based on a sudden rush of unsigned generic 'keep' comments (with no proof supplied) from different IP addresses, it will make Wikipedia a joke!! Sionk (talk) 06:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I think this is unlikely, see Polling is not a substitute for discussion. The contributions from unregistered users all make the same points and while they should not be dismissed, their influence should not be treated as cumulative.
 * The snide comments about Gratton's qualifications are inappropriate, whether or not they are justified. As it happens, there is some evidence that his doctorate is bone fide. In one of his books published by the Cambridge University Press he is referred to as Dr Dean Anthony Gratton. We should be able to rely on the CUP to check that their author's qualifications are not presented in a misleading manner. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't made any 'snide' comments. I'd be grateful if you retracted that. Sionk (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I interpreted your comment "but strangely doesn't reveal the subject or the college that awarded it" as suggesting that Gratton had bought a doctorate from a degree mill. Another editor then made more explicit comments suggesting his. I apologise if I have misinterpreted your words. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * New source, in response to the question Where are in-depth book reviews published in reliable sources, here is one:
 * The ACM is a highly-rated learned society. We could do with more sources of this quality, but this is significant progress. I suspect that there may be more good sources out there. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The ACM is a highly-rated learned society. We could do with more sources of this quality, but this is significant progress. I suspect that there may be more good sources out there. Verbcatcher (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Another new source. A ProQuest search reveals another review for the handbook:

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I am relisting this one more time solely to allow for discussion of the additions sources brought forth towards the end of the discussion as it currently stands. The "keep" arguments posited by the IP editors are entirely unconvincing.
 * That brings us up to two sources for the book, which means it meets WP:NBOOK. That's as far as I've got here. Haukur (talk) 09:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 12:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I have looked more into this now and tried hard to find more RS reviews for his books, without any success. That leaves us with two reviews of The Handbook of Personal Area Networking Technologies and Protocols and no other significant, independent, reliable sources, as far as I can see. So, if someone wants to write an article on that book (which could have one or two sentences about the author) we could leave a redirect here. Otherwise, delete unless more sources show up. Haukur (talk) 13:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's really good someone tried to get this working, but if there's no more to be found, then there's not established notability. Significant coverage is required, and this subject just does not have it.  The self-promotional tone of the article is also suggestive of a potential WP:COI.   Red Phoenix  talk  15:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Insufficient depth-of-coverage from reliable sources. I only see a single source from a local news site (https://www.barryanddistrictnews.co.uk/) that might qualify; that article appears to be a press release. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment – Articles for deletion says:
 * And WP:VAIN says What used to be called "vanity" is now called a "conflict of interest". Verbcatcher (talk) 07:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No doubt you're making these points in the interests of fairness and encouraging a reasoned AfD discussion, but aren't all of the 'Delete' comments so far on the basis of WP:GNG? Sionk (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No doubt you're making these points in the interests of fairness and encouraging a reasoned AfD discussion, but aren't all of the 'Delete' comments so far on the basis of WP:GNG? Sionk (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Insufficient breadth and depth of coverage from reliable sources. No signficant impact on society either.Knox490 (talk) 03:14, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.