Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Loxdale


 * 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. No consensus to delete, and a consensus that it meets s WP:NACADEMIC #6; the additional issues regarding sourcing can be handled outside of AfD (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hugh Loxdale

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability is in question and has not been established. The sources appear to be all primary, without reliable sources. A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. Devokewater (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * It looks to me as if the persomn might well be notable, . Did you do a WP:BEFORE search to try to find independent sources? if so, what search parameters did you use, please? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh and COI editing is not grounds for deletion, unless there has been promotion or hoaxing. Lack of notability is, but onloy after trying to check for sources, and considering WP:ATD. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi DES I googled him (do this for everyone I comment upon) + did some research, it appears to me that the article was written by connected people. All the sources appear to be connected to him and not independent, IMHO the article looks as if it was written as PR, it even has his CV attached. Quite happy to be proven wrong. Regards --Devokewater (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Recently on the Teahouse, wrote  Assuming this to be accurate, the subject is not the primary author but is a contributor to the article, and the degree of COI of other contributors is unclear. None of which is a reason for deletion. (Being a pure autobiography is not a reason for deletion.) The lack of independent sources is s problem. A google books search jut now showed on the first results page several books where Lockdake was thanked for reviewing contributions, as well as several where he wrote the book or a chapter. None of these as an independent source with significant coverage but in the past such things almost always indicate soemoen who will pass WP:PROF. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The article as it exists needs to have an ax taken to it, but at the core, I believe the person can meet Wikipedia's definition of notabile. David notMD (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep President of the Royal Entomological Society satisfies WP:NACADEMIC #C6, and NACADEMIC explicitly supersedes GNG. That said, the article is indeed promotional with evidence of obvious COI editing. I recommend passing this on to WP:COIN to deal with the COI and promo issues. Spicy (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment If this article is kept then it needs independent sources + the fluffy parts edited out, why on earth is his CV attached? the piece on the Teahouse talks about a couple of accounts (or numerous accounts) this is a red flag to me, he may meet the criteria of being notable however I emphasis that IMHO this article is written as PR and presently does not add to Wikipedia. --Devokewater (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * IMO the article should be cut down to a one-paragraph stub, but dismantling an article while it's at AfD is sometimes frowned upon. Spicy (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have taken an ax to some of the article (including the CV). More needed. If Loxdale stays away from editing the article it can rise to Wikipedia standards. David notMD (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment my concern now is that too many of the references contain; "Loxdale, H. D" Devokewater (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Spicy as meeting NACADEMIC C6 as president of the Royal Entomological Society. Also seems fairly well cited. The article needs cleanup, perhaps stubbing, but not deletion.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 06:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment per Spicy the article should be cut down to a one-paragraph stub. Devokewater (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2020 (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.