Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Hurd


 * 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. Yamamoto Ichiro (山本一郎)(会話) 03:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pete Hurd

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

NN Bio Pete.Hurd 17:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * note appears to be disruptive creation of an article as part of the continuing (?) Patrick DeMeyer/Patrick De Meyer/Curious Gregor/Mad kemist/Timothy Boyle nonsense, see 128.40.76.3's contributions, etc. Boring. Pete.Hurd 17:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.  -- Pete.Hurd 17:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a blog.--Edtropolis 17:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't this argument apply only to articles created by the subject of the article? Pete's only edit to this article has been to add the AfD banner. —David Eppstein 00:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Doesn't hold a very flashy title or affiliation, but has attracted international media attention for his research as demonstrated by the sources cited in the article. (Sorry, Pete, for disagreeing with your nom, but that's how I see it.) —David Eppstein 18:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your position completely, no need to apologize. The media attention was about my work (or more properly my grad student's work), meaning that *I* was not the subject of the media attention, per Pan_Dan below. That's my disagreement with the translation of WP:N to biographies, especially academic biographies, on WP. I think that my biographical details, my musical preferences and handsome features (or lack thereof) just aren't the sort of material that people look to an encyclopedia for. I don't see how it, and the other like it, impart any understanding of the world of knowledge. That's just my view on WP:N applied to this case (where think I can nominate without being accused of bad faith). Pete.Hurd 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unless Pete feels very strongly about this, I think he's notable, and I don't see any BLP problems. I removed some of the more ridiculous content.  See also Wikipedians with articles. Yechiel Man  18:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just apply WP policy. I don't think whether I feel strongly about this or not ought to matter. I brought it to AfD, I didn't take it to OFFICE. Pete.Hurd 21:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. First, as Pete notes, this article was created as part of a (malicious?) campaign to create Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia users. Second, in response to David, every source cited in the article is about a study conducted by Pete—not about Pete himself. Those sources would support a small expansion of Aggression, or Hand perhaps. But they would not support an entire Wikipedia article on the topic of the study, let alone an entire Wikipedia article on Pete Hurd, per Biographies of living persons. Pan Dan 18:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the digit ratio article covers whatever need to be kept about that study. Pete.Hurd 21:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Not sure what all the drama between the subject of the article and others users was. Looking at the present version of the article purely as a question of meeting WP:PROF it appears to just do so, based on his 29 or so publications in refereed journals (in addition to theses, letters etc). The one finding of finger length as an aggression index gained quite a bit of popular notice, and is the deciding factor in judging that the subject satisfies WP:PROF. If a few active Wikipedians watchlist the article it should be simple enough to revert any vandalism or attacks which persons might add to it. Edison 19:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Given the article subject himself has calmly nominated the article for deletion (which of course, has no impact on his notability per se), I would rather support his request than make any comments evaluating his work with respect to WP:PROF. I think he has taken the correct course of action given the suspect motivations of this article's author.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 21:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. While some of the subject's research may have received media attention, he personally was not the subject of the media attention. --Metropolitan90 07:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * NOTE-I did not create this article as some form of malicious campaign (Come on, that would be really petty, and assuming bad faith). I created the page to collect, preserve and acknowledge the work of Pete Hurd, which is the purpose of wikipedia (preservation of information that is). If the article does not meet WP:PROF, then delete the article. The argument that Pete Hurd is not notable but the research findings are notable, is rubbish. For example, Christopher Columbus discovered America and is notable for doing so. The significant finding is the discovery of America, but Columbus is still notable. Pete Hurd gained as much recognition and media attention as were the significance of his findings, therefore he is notable. R:128.40.76.3 09:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to take you seriously given your history of deleting warnings from your talk page and your activity leading to those warnings.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 05:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (Conditional) Keep passes notability requirements pretty easily (independent interest in his work is crucial here). But I think for non-crucial articles, we should take into account requests from the subject--obviously we couldn't delete "Colin Powell" if he asked the article to be removed, but I think cases like these are borderline--so I'd like the closing admin to look at precedent, and if there is a precedent for deleting articles based on the subject's request, please do so. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing recommendation to Merge with digit ratio -- but I actually mean merge and not just redirect. When a person is mainly notable for a single concept, it is better to have information there--that is true--but information about the authors of studies can be appropriate to have on a topic page. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep with apologies to Pete at not following his wishes. There are two types of academics & other people with respect to their articles--the ones who think they are more important than they are, and the modest ones who are surprised to be considered encyclopedia-worthy. (I've never seen anyone in the middle). For the vain ones, the job is to see what lies underneath, for the others, it's to see what there is that they don't put forward. Frankly, the vain ones are easier to deal with--one just has to cut, with the general skepticism that affects all COI. The others, you've got to find the stuff. (and, sometimes, negotiate with them asking them not to request deletion). Here, 27 papers, with citation counts of 77,75,68  for the most cited, in a small field.  Definite specialty of his own. Attention for the general media as well as citations--work interesting to the public. Meets the normal standards. Agreed, we don't want to look like we're paying special attention to out own people. But it's even less suitable to pretend we don't know them. DGG 04:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Sorry, dude; you're notable! (I'd do something about that pic, though...unless you really like that shirt.)--Mike18xx 08:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * comes from his user page.DGG 06:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, and there's no independent verification that that's really Pete Hurd. There's not even any verification that User:Pete.Hurd is Pete Hurd. Not that I doubt User:Pete.Hurd, who (implicitly) claims to be Pete Hurd on his old userpage, but the point is that Wikipedia content must be independently verifiable (ya know, WP:V and all that). I'm glad to see Yechielman already removed the content from Pete Hurd claiming that he edits Wikipedia, and we should remove the picture from the article also. Pan Dan 17:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Changing my recommendation to merge to Digit ratio, per the same reasoning that I already expressed, plus Pete's reply to me. I note with curiosity that no one recommending "keep" has either explained how a list of citations and publications makes an encyclopedia article or addressed Biographies of living persons. Pan Dan 18:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Delete it or don't, but please don't merge any of my biography into Digit ratio! Pete.Hurd 19:18, 19 June 2007 (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.