Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Darwen (2nd 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 was   KEEP. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 00:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hugh Darwen
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article only references articles and books by the subject matter himself, leading to the suspicion that this is a vanity page. Not all academics deserve wikipedia pages, and this doesn't seem like one of them UKWikiGuy (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to be influential/important enough for WP:BIO. Not much biographical information available, although I found one reference. Peter E. James (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

— Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Hugh Darwen co-authored several influential books and articles, and represented the UK and IBM at the ISO/IEC SQL committe. What else would be needed for notability?
 * Keep - Google Books shows he's authored or co-authored a ton of database books. --CliffC (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, definitely notable, appears to be a spurious nomination. References are supplied from a number of sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- Jezhotwells (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Google Scholar suggests that Darwen's works are being cited frequently elsewhere. The article could do with some work, but that is no grounds as such for deletion. (actually, I think this is symptomatic of the fact that even for a notoriously geek-ridden project like Wikipedia, the most interesting bio's rarely concern scientists etc. A science-based education rarely encourages good writing. If Darwen had published as widely in popular fiction, the article would probably be five times as long...) AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, or perhaps more a question. I'm having trouble finding material about him, has he been extensively noted? The discussion seems to center on what he's done, which seems backward. Notability isn't dependent on what he's written (or how often it's cited), but how extensively he's been written about. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouch!. Sadly, you may be right. By general standards of notability, Paris Hilton is probably more 'notable' than Steven Hawking. Now I'd never heard of Hugh Darwen before, and only have a rudimentary working knowledge of what a relational database is. Nevertheless, I think I can safely say they are more significant to daily life than the vacuous lives of 'celebrities', and Darwen seems on the face of it to show signs of notability in his field. Shouldn't that be the criteria we apply? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relational databases, depending who you ask, are either the greatest invention ever or a curse that should be done away with at once. (I tend to be between the two, but overall I find them quite useful, and have worked with them a good deal.) It's not uncommon, though, that people do excellent work but aren't themselves in the limelight. And I'm not even saying no material exists about him&mdash;sometimes with these types, you just have to dig a little deeper. I just don't like seeing subjective determinations being the order of the day, even when we might want to. The only objective way to answer the question is "Is X notable?" is "Well, how much has X been noted?" Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that general Wikipedia policy is a little more subtle than that. Even the most obscure species of flatworm gets its own article (entirely merited too in some cases: see penis fencing), but I doubt many of them pass the Paris Hilton test. I'll suggest that if Wikipedia thinks that relational databases are noteble, and Darwen is notable within the field, he merits at least a flatworm's worth of article-space (rather than a null entry in Wikipedia). AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. GS cites and Honorary degree suffice. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC).
 * Keep - as per Jezhotwells and Xxanthippe. Kudpung (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - the effort should however be to  expand this article beyond  being  mainly  a list  of his works, to  include some  proper biographical  information such as education,  personal development, family history, place of birth, date of birth, etc. Kudpung (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The question is, without a reliable source of such basic information, should we even have an article? WP:Notability (people) would seem to say 'No', but Notability (academics) would seem to say 'Yes'. Which wins? Qwfp (talk) 10:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously ðe more specific recommendation, ðat on academics, takes precedence. Even because, in academia, works are important, not family history, place and date of birþ or personal development. — Leandro GFC Dutra (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - At AfD#1, maybe you can get away with citing how important he is. However, at AfD#2, you need to start putting up. In particular, you need to make a showing that Hugh Darwen has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject to justify having a stand-alone article on the topic. He may have authored books, but since his actions have not prompted others to write about him, that shows how non-worthy of note he really is. When I look at the article and read the above discussion, it is clear tht the Wikipedia article Hugh Darwen tangentially discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover article by his fans. The abundant keep positions are very WP:GNG weak and have failed to rebut the strong "lack of sufficient reliable source coverage" argument presented by the delete positions. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. He has strong cases both for WP:PROF for his database work, and WP:GNG for his bridge puzzle work. There are reliable sources for both of these claims to notability (the Open Eye piece for his database work, and the New York Times for his bridge puzzles). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2011 (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.