Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piers Lauder


 * 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 Merge and redirect to Lauder Baronets. (The merge has already been performed by BrownHairedGirl, so I'll just make the page a redirect.) WaltonOne 16:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Piers Lauder

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article describes somebody of surpassing ordinariness, a worthy but apparently unexceptional person. It lacks independent sources. The only sources provided are taken form information provided by the subject. Baronetcies are not so very common, but computer programmers are, and apart form inheriting a title that seems ot be about it. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Lauder Baronets, as I did here with another non-notable Lauder Baronet, viz. Sir Andrew Dick-Lauder, 6th Baronet. I agree with the nominator's assessment of Piers Lauder as non-notable, but I would be strongly opposed to simply deleting the article. The article on the baronetcy itself is clearly notable per WP:N (referenced in multiple sources), and demonstrates holders of the title played a significant roile through over a dozen generations. Per WP:PAPER, there is no need to constrain the length of Lauder Baronets, so I will go ahead and merge, an action which does not require AfD approval. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Now merged. However, I have not replaced the article Piers Lauder with a redirect, because AFAICS that should not be done until this AfD is closed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: this fellow for over 20 years held the equivalent of a professorship in computing scientce at a major and established university. Moreover, such is his expertise (not jst a "common computer programmer") that at least one of his specialities is now used by the Australian government. Mention is made of the bios on websites, but worth pointing out that one of those is the university's website for bios on staff. Add to that he is a baronet, and my suggestion is that the overall package, all things considered, he is more notable than most. David Lauder 18:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Question which of the sources supports the claim that he "held the equivalent of a professorship"? The only references I can see for his time in University describe him not a professor or even as a lecturer, but as a "programmer". I hope that you can either substantiate this claim, or withdraw it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As to the references which you added, the first was a duplicate, the second was a link to a paper by Lauder not an article about him, and hence is irrelevant to notability; and the third reference makes two passing references to Lauder. So in reality, the only evidence we have of the notability of Lauder's contribution to computing is two brief mentions in an essay hosted on the author's own homepage. Even if that meets the non-trivial criterion, it hardly meets the "published" criterion. The reason that this AfD is important is that it is about an area where a significant number of the editors who create the articles seem to be either unaware of the notability guidelines, or at best (assuming good faith), to seriously misunderstand them, repeatedly disrupting notability discussions with spurious claims such as that a person is notable for having inherited a baronetcy, or even claims such as this] that the subject held a role which none of the sources claim. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per comments of David. Part of a series of articles which it adds to. --Counter-revolutionary 21:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BIO, an article not meeting notability guidelines on its own should be merged "into a broader article providing context". In this case, Lauder Baronets is that broader article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Question can any of those voting to "keep" this article explain how it meets WP:BIO? Subjective judgments such as "more notable than most" are not reasons to keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per BrownHairedGirl. Giano 09:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to meet notability. Biofoundationsoflanguage 13:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Question. Where are the multiple, non-non-trivial independent sources required by WP:BIO? The two on-line sources are on his employers' websites (and therefore not independent), and the only other references are in directories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Questions: There are countless bios on WP which simply do not have "multiple" sources, some lucky to have one. So why is this AfD so important? And where in WP:BIO does it state that an employer's public comments on their staff is unacceptable as source materiél? Also, are you saying that the two-centuries old publications of Burkes, Kellys, Debretts, et al, (which are not just "directories" aka a telephone book but potted biographies of those contained therein), are no longer acceptable source materiéls? I have now added two further on-line references (having seen elsewhere on WP where people have complained about the lack of google hits on a subject). David Lauder 10:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Whilst I totally agree that these are not independent sources, and don't strictly meet the guidelines, do not those guidelines imply that we should use common sense? Various Wikipedia rules do indeed say that when the guidelines seem a poor fit for an issue, then common sense is fine. In that context, the size and nature of his employers tend to suggest that they're sufficiently reliable sources. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 10:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to David Lauder. Again, please please please do read WP:BIO: the place where it say that an employer's public comments on their staff is unacceptable as evidence of notability is where WP:BIO requires "published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" (emphasis added by me). An employer is clearly not independent of the subject, and indeed many employer websites quite properly have webpages on people who who are clearly notable only in the context of the company or organisation concerned.
 * Reply to BHG: This fellow is clearly a notable in the fields of IT. A read through numerous Google hits confirms that. I did not duplicate another web-page citation although I see that webpage also has a reference to the same publication. You refer to these as mere "papers" but they are very long and published by a university and get Google hits as important references. I am sorry "the editors who create the articles" you refer to are so wanting in their understanding of WP guidelines. I certainly am not, its just that my interpretation of them differs from yours David Lauder 16:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to David Lauder.
 * I think that this interpretation of the guidelines is important. Please explain how you conclude that the subject's homepage on an employers' website is, per WP:BIO, "intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"? Many such pages are written and maintained by the subject themselves, and the others are written by their colleagues.
 * I have just looked a Google search for "Piers Lauder". I find a few references to the paper you cited (in which he was not even the lead author, but the third of three authors), and countless hits which are archives of the mailing lists through which IT academics conduct their work. All that those archives show is that he worked in the field.
 * You refer to one paper (presumably this one) as "published by a university", which is not the case: it is hosted on the homepage of a [ consultant affiliated to the university]. That is a very different matter from a peer-reviewed academic journal, to which you implicitly compare it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge Individual notability has not been established per adequate verifiable sources per WP:BIO. Tyrenius 14:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Definite Merge There is no where near enough Reliable, Verifiable sources to make it a WP:BIO Subject. SirFozzie 04:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this debate is silly now. It should be referred to the pending Arbcom case, let them decide if it meets the criteria or not - otherwise debates like this will just keep going arownd in circles for eternity. I for one am sick to death of argueing against logic with these people who seem to live in the Edwardian period. Giano 18:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep- another notable baronet, in my opinion meets WP:BIO Astrotrain 19:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that notability purely by being a baronet, or is there something specific which achieves notability in his case? Tyrenius 20:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He has achieved notability in his field of work- computing as well as being a baronet of Nova Scotia. Astrotrain 20:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no references to validate notability for his work. You seem to be saying that just being a baronet is itself notable, but this in itself is not evidence of notability. Again where is the wider coverage for this? There are many obscure baronets. Tyrenius 01:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am basing my vote on several things- baronet being one, but also his role in the computing industry which from reading seems to meet the notability guidlines to me. Astrotrain 21:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Astrotrain, I have you to wonder whether you actually read WP:N and WP:BIO? If his role in computing is significant enough to meet wikipedia's notablity standards, then there will be multiple non-trivial references. However, all we have so far are potted bios on his employers' websites, which fail both the independence and non-triviality tests. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - lacks significant coverage from reliable sources to establish  notability. Dlabtot 22:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing at all seems to meet even the most very basic criteria. Nothing even worth merging into Lauder Baronets. Galloglass 22:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Galloglass, yes, at least the other one could be merged. This is just more family vanity.  DEVS EX MACINA  pray 01:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge because although Baronetcy may make one notable (as has been discussed ad nauseam on the Arbuthnott articles most of us writing here are familiar with), there seems to be a good case to make the Baronetcy the focus of one article because the Baronetcy itself is notable and simply to help readers understand the lineage and the differences or similarities between the generations of the family. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 10:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite. We do not have to choose between having an article on this man or no coverage of him; merger allows an appropriate intermediate solution which preserves the information without creating another stubby article on a person of (at best) marginal notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Lauder Baronets. Per BHG. Choess 01:04, 21 September 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.