Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Malcolm


 * 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. While the individual may or may not be notable, the consensus is that this article would require a complete rewrite even if he were. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Pete Malcolm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is WP:NOT advertising. Blatant promotion sourced primarily to press releases. CorporateM (Talk) 22:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep seems to have had a successful career as an entrepreneur, but it may be in USA, rather than UK. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Malcolm is an important figure in the computing industry, not only as an entrepreneur in both the US and Europe, but as a prolific inventor. The entry contains direct references to many of his patents, several of which will be found in both Windows and Linux, and thus very widely deployed.  His address on the patents is always in the UK which suggests this remains appropriate.RogerDavis21 (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Article look well written enough to be kept. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 19:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * wp:pretty. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Overly promotional piece lacking independent coverage about Malcolm. This advert is more about the companies he is involved in and notability is not inherited from them. The sources are mostly promotional pieces and none are independent reliable sources that provide any depth of coverage about him. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep (repeat): I created this page four plus years ago to recognize someone I met briefly who impressed me greatly. After researching his background, I concluded he was someone important in the industry who had not been widely recognized, which is why I created the page.  At that time there was not much independent coverage of him, but a quick Google search reveals there is now a substantial amount more, including many third party interviews.  I will update the page accordingly over the next few days.  Meanwhile, I would contend that the fact that the entry gives more than 30 direct links to published patents invented by Malcolm over a 20+ year period is ample independent evidence to justify a WP entry.  Respectfully, I don't understand the "inherited" comment.  What is it you believe is missing here?  RogerDavis21 (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep (repeat): Extensively re-written to take account of previous comments. Changed main focus to Inventions, and added references to Articles, Presentations and Interviews.RogerDavis21 (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Pete Malcolm is significant figure in the tech industry as a whole and a significant inventor as evidenced by the patents listed by the US Patent Office and highlighted in this article. One other item of note is that Pete was the first person listed as an Entrepreneur_in_residence in Europe by the Venture Capital firm Benchmark Capital. JohnNewton (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The question here is whether this article is so over-expansive and promotional that it should be kept and edited, or whether it is best removed and restarted by a NPOV editor. He may be notable : the most likely well-sourced notability is as founder of Orchestria,I am not willing to infer his creating these various computer techniques from having been given patents for them, or even their being cited in other patents--it can merely mean that being there and making these claims, it was though safe to cite it. Considering the generally disputed origin of much computer technology,  I'd look for a very reliable outside source that actually discussed the claims and attributed the invention to him. If the article is kept, this section will need to be much reduced. The various positions are none of them notable, either individually or collectively, except possibly for Orchestria. .  The awards are trivial As for the sources, the interviews seem  either to quote him among other people, or to be  the direct product of PR, and I am certainly willing to accept Corporate M's view for what is PR. A year ago I would have said, keep and rewrite; with the deluge of promotional articles we're now seeing,   I say delete and start over.  DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep (repeat): Wow,  DGG that's quite an attack!  Applying those "standards" would result in the deletion of vast numbers of biographies of very well-known people. Notability should be about what a person has actually done and achieved as much as what he or she is "famous" for. Malcolm's patents certainly exist, he more than meets the criteria for prolific inventor, I can find find no evidence to suggest any of his patents have been challenged, and there is no dispute that they have been very widely cited.  The inclusion of his business career is to provide a complete biographical picture, it is does not imply that any of those positions was in itself notable, though some of the companies he worked for were clearly very successful in exploiting the technology he invented.   Respectfully, I am a completely NPOV editor, this article was originally created in 2009, much earlier than "a year ago", and it is therefore not a product of any recent "deluge".  I revised the article extensively based on earlier feedback, and am certainly willing to do so again if there is concensus as to what should be changed.  I understand that many Wikipedia entries are "puff pieces" created by a PR agency, but can assure you this one is not. I believe Malcolm is both notable and worthy of a comprehensive Wikipedia entry, and that is what I set out to create.   I am encouraged that others (to varying degrees, including yourself) seem to think so too. RogerDavis21 (talk) 04:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop !voting. It's nice to see that this person you happened to have met has made such an impact on you that you've dedicated so much time to him, to the total exclusion of anything else. We don't deny he has invented some some stuff, your spamlinks show that he has. It doesnt matter wether his "inventions" have been challenged or not. the question is Have they or him recieved any significant independent coverage? duffbeerforme (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I was attempting to engage in reasoned debate, not 'vote' multiple times, which is why I marked my subsequent posts with 'repeat'.  With respect, your 'spamlnks' comment is unworthy.  I have made my case, and (some) others have agreed. Admins, in the absence of clear consensus to delete, is it not WP policy to keep the article?  This has been going on for several weeks now ... RogerDavis21 (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 *  Definite Keep  now following improvements to the article, assuming it is all true. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why keep? duffbeerforme (talk) 09:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - per CorporateM, duffbeerforme, and DGG. I do not see the improvements referred to by Peterkingiron. The article is not a biography of Pete Malcolm. Rather, the article is so over-expansive and promotional that it should be removed and allowed to be restarted by a NPOV editor. The article has four main sections: 1 Software Inventions, 2 Business, 3 Media Articles, Interviews and Presentations, 4 Patents. The claims in the Software Inventions section that the three listed inventions are significant to their field are not supported by reliable sources. The Business section does not inter relates chronology and the information is promotional and about the companies, not life event of Malcolm. The 'Media Articles, Interviews and Presentations' section merely are further reading information that provides no life event information in the Wikipedia article and appear to be there to promote that Malcolm receives coverage. The list of patents lacks any evidence of interest independent of Malcolm and seem listed merely to promote Malcolm rather than convey information about his life events. The article merely is a disconnected compilation of information with little relationship to the ordered life events of Malcom. Wikipedia is doing a disservice to Pete Malcolm by maintaining this article and the article should be deleted. -- Jreferee (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2013 (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.