Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Thomas Hay


 * 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. or at the very least there isn't sufficient consensus for deletion JForget  22:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter Thomas Hay

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This seems to be an article without independent sources. The only claim to notability is - admittedly quite a lot of - mildly trite books. It does not seem to have any chance of meeting notability criteria. I suggest deletion. Civis Romanus (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: I've good-faith submitted this for a non-autoconfirmed user. tedder (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What does that jargon mean? Since the Nominator is an admitted sock-puppet (see her (Civis Romanus) TalkPage) are you 'vouching' for a sock-puppet? I would suggest that there is no such thing as "good-faith submitted" for any "non-autoconfirmed user". Don't you realize there is a reason why that other 'entity' is "non-autoconfirmed"? It is because there is no "good faith" applicable to that user. When that user, herself, has complied with the honorable procedures that qualify one for the privilege of being "autoconfirmed" then she can "submit" herself. For you to step up and say you are "submitting" for a "non-autoconfirmed user" is a little like saying you are the one letting underage kids into the drinking-party through the back door, right? Joe Hepperle (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP because the Nominator is a sock-puppet account (by her own admission on her TalkPage). Secondly, the page that 'sock-puppet' is trying to delete shows that the subject of that page is the author of more than twelve books on steam trains. The fact that sock-puppet thinks that Steam Trains is a 'trite' subject should have no bearing here. The sock-puppet's claim of no 'independent sources' is mind boggling since there are at least 15 sources given (by my quick count). Additionally, the article itself states the claim of notability, that being that the subject is an "...authority on British Steam Railways...", and that the subject is the "...author [of] numerous books and articles on the subject..." including a published book "series" in his area of expertise. The references need to be integrated inline into the article, but there is no basis whatsoever for deleting. Joe Hepperle (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * DOUBLE-STRONG KEEP What underhandedness is going on here? I just checked the page-history for this page and discovered that the supposed nominator, Civis Romanus, has never been on this page whatsoever! Instead, it is the 'second' commenter, Tedder, who falsely posted twice, by cutting and pasting 'Civis Romanus's' user timestamp information onto her (Tedder's) first post. Then, she came back as herself (Tedder)and posted again. If any Admins read this, Tedder should be censured somehow, I can't believe that "false postings" are at one with Wikipedia policies. Joe Hepperle (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI: Tedder is an administrator. Tedder created this nomination for User:Civis Romanus because that user is not yet autoconfirmed, and is not yet able to nominate. See Civis Romanus's request for an afd on the article's talk page. Also, you are only allowed to !vote once.  Jujutacular  T · C 16:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh boy. Jujutacular explained it well- I monitor the list of incomplete AFDs and good-faith submit them for nominators who can't do som themselves, because they aren't allowed to create pages (which means they cannot complete an AFD). I have no knowledge of the Peter Thomas Hay aside from this, I've never seen or heard of User:Civis Romanus. If you are truly accusing me of using User:Civis Romanus as a WP:SOCK, please gladly file a WP:SPI report. I'd be more than happy to prove through a checkuser that it isn't me. Further, no activities of mine have ever indicated I'd have a need for a sock account such as this. Civis Romanus has been to the Peter Thomas Hay article page- here's their incomplete AFD nomination attempt. Finally, note I'm not even trying to vote on this AFD. I don't know or care about it. tedder (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is written clearly above, that User:Civis Romanus is the SockPuppet. User:Civis Romanus is the user operating a rogue Sock userpage contrary to Wikipedia policy pertaining to [legitimate uses of a 'second' account]. All sock accounts that are created for one of the 'listed' legitimate reasons are required to have a link, on the sock page, to the user's 'real' or 'main' page. Civis Romanus's sock page contains neither a link to her main page, nor a valid reason (per WP policy) for having that sock page.
 * And you're right, the evidence that is available here does not show Tedder to be a sock, which is why I said that User:Civis Romanus is the sock, not Tedder. But WP policy prohibits creating sock accounts for the purpose of bypassing WP policies. WP policy states that non-autoconfirmed accounts are not eligible to do what User:Civis Romanus wants to do. User:Civis Romanus could have easily switched over to her Main account and do the . But she didn't. That leaves a gaping question, "Why can't she use her Main account to nominate this article for deletion?". Nonetheless, she is trying to use her Sock account to delete an article. But her sock account is not qualified (per WP policy) to do this. Tedder has assisted the Sock Puppet account, User:Civis Romanus, to bypass WP policy.
 * Tedder is not the sock. Tedder has assisted the Sock Puppet account, User:Civis Romanus, to bypass WP policy. Tedder has also edited this page (here! not there) but copy-and-pasted another user's username and timestamp at the end of the edit which I believe is also another counter-policy technique. I applaud Tedder for being willing to help those editors who need help. I just couldn't square it in my mind though why she would help an illegal sock account try to delete an article here, but over [here] she helped to permanently ban a legitimate user on mere suspicion of the account being a sock. (I will soon be posting a note on Tedder and Secret's talk pages soon (per WP guidelines) about their inappropriate misuse of Admin Tools- i.e. not following the WP policy for dealing with suspected sock puppets as found [here]) Joe Hepperle (talk) 17:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the incorrect place to make accusations of sockpuppetry and/or aiding a sockpuppet. Please consider CR's actions (as well as my own) in good faith. If you continue to see this as a problem, take it to WP:ANI, not here. tedder (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP - without getting into the sock-puppet/nominator argument, the subject seems notable on his own merits. --MelanieN (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN
 * Delete Every reference currently in the article is self-published. From my search, I could not find significant third-party coverage of this author. I would be open to discussing any decent sources that can be found.  Jujutacular  T · C 12:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * KEEP - I believe the subject is notable, but the references need improving. Have added 2 new references from BBC website and British Design Museum site. Caruso 308 (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - All references are WP:SELFPUB, and this individual fails the notability guidelines at WP:AUTHOR. Whether or not the nominator is a sock-puppet is something for the admins to deal with, and shouldn't affect our !votes on this AfD.    talk 12:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: the subject is notable and sock puppetry taints the Nominator - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP - Self published references removed and further third party references added. Caruso 308 (talk) 22:14, 8 December 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.