Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Derbyshire


 * 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   speedy keep. There si no reason to delete the article, editorial work should fix all the problems. Tone 11:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

John Derbyshire

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I am not an expert in the deletion process, so experts I request that you assist me with this. I nominate this article for deletion for the following reason: The subject of the article is so controversial that Wikipedia standards for NPOV cannot be adhered to under the present circumstances. Inability to conform to NPOV is grounds for deletion under Wikipedia guidelines, and so I recommend deletion.Jarhed (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For discussion that I have already initiated, please see Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons.Jarhed (talk) 01:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Page deletions instructions say for step #3 the following: "Open the articles for deletion log page. At the top of the list on the log page (there's a comment indicating the spot), insert (a standard comment)". I'm sorry, I can't figure out what the instruction "Open the articles for deletion log page" means. Once again, I request assistance from an expert.Jarhed (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * At the very top of the Articles for deletion page, there is a link to today's deletion log.
 * I made that entry but it did not show up for about an hour. I don't know what I was doing wrong but thank you for your help.Jarhed (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I vote keep. If we can't have articles on subjects as controversial as JD, then we can have almost no articles. I fail to see why NPOV can't be achieved. WhyDoIKeepForgetting (talk) 02:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On notability and sourcing: On the face of it, Derbyshire seems like a significant and well-known commentator, but in trying to address neutrality issues with the article, I searched in vain for significant independent, reliable coverage of the topic of Derbyshire himself. As the article stands, it consists only of primary-sourced inter-blogger disputes, unreferenced content, and minor personal details. It seems unlikely that proper coverage does not exist, but if editors with greater google-fu than I cannot find it either, I move that the article ought to be deleted or at the very least radically stubbed. Skomorokh,  barbarian  02:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep "Controversial" is not a reason for deletion--if anything, wide spread controversy shows notability and is a reason for keeping. His several non-political books, 2 of which have won prizes in different fields,  are by themselves unquestionable reasons for an article on him.     DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per DGG. Derbyshire is sufficiently prominent that he needs to have a bio here. I'll see what I can do about cutting out some of the more problematic parts. Ray  Talk 05:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah. Skomorokh has already beaten me to it, it seems. Ray  Talk 05:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. As DGG mentions, the 2 award-winning books are more than enough to support notability, never mind the assorted controversies about his columns.--Arxiloxos (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep per DGG UltraMagnusspeak 11:37, 18 October 2009 (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.