Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Hedges


 * 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 fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Richard Hedges

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article appears to have been written by subect and subject does not appear to be notable Jonesy (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet WP:BIO standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete Pastor Theo has not explained what criteria of the WP:BIO standards have not been met.  Please explain before simply suggesting it for deletion without explanation.  I think that the Richard Hedges page is very appropriate, I very much idolise Richard Hedges (as do many other people)not only for his work, but also for his tutorials on web development and design.  If you know anything about computers, you've heard of Richard Hedges  --81.79.79.226 (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer the above question, you generally only need to pass one criterion listed in WP:BIO to get an article on wikipedia, so if it's being nominated for deletion, that means the nominator thinks it fails all the WP:BIO criteria. I won't go into every details, but the basic criterion is that he has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. At the moment, all we have is one article from Compuweekly, which isn't enough. Coupled with the fact that I can't find any hits on Gnews and I know a lot of about computers myself and I've never heard of him, I'm going for Delete. As always, I will reconsider if you can present coverage from other sources. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete 1.)The article fails Objectivity at this point. 2.)The only reference is a message board rather than a new article. Moral Support - Keep working, you're young and have a promising future ahead, I have no doubt you'll be able to accomplish great things. ;) — Ched (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I won't stop fighting for this page to be kept on; How can you not have heard of Richard Hedges? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.79.226 (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if we have heard of him until now because he doesn't pass WP:BIO. Chris Neville and I were unable to find multiple reliable sources that show notability. The thing that you need to do to get this article saved is to find multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Schuym1 (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I can't seem to find any reliable sources to establish notability.  LinguistAtLarge &bull; Msg  18:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Aren't these sites proof enough?: http://www.the-sketch.net/site/ [see also:]  http://the-sketch.net/portfolio/  [see also:]http://www.computalk.net/showthread.php?t=3602 [where he is being elected a very important person on computalk forums]     —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.79.226 (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Those sources aren't independent of the subject. Schuym1 (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete, though I think the Sam Martin thing is the stuff novels are made of--pretty exciting! BTW, I've never heard of this guy, nor has the rest of the internet (well, the part written by others). Drmies (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment going out on a limb here, and I'm not making accusations, but perhaps a read of COI bio would help our defendant. — Ched (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment 2 and no offense intended, but I've been working with computers since the early 80's, had my first domain by 97, and I'm sorry, but the only Richard Hedges I've ever heard of is the police officer that got killed in a car chase. — Ched (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * One vote, (probably you) on a little known forum is hardly an item that makes you notable! If you spend your time working on your websites, then MAYBE, one day someone will write an article about you here.  Articles at Wikipedia must be sourced by verifiable sources.  Meaning Newspaper, Journals, and published material.  Forums, chat rooms, blogs, and sites of this nature do not qualify for verifable sources that show you to be notable.  I'm sorry, but this dog just won't hunt (meaning that this page won't survive). — Ched (talk) 16:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, 81.79.79.226, whoever he/she is, removed four delete votes (now restored) whilst claiming it was removing some basic typing errors, here. Just thought you should know. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Chris. I think, given that this IP has made early edits to the actual article, that we can guess who this is. This calls for, at the very least, a stern warning (if not a block) for the vote-deletion alone, and perhaps a charge of sockpuppetry. Chris N-S, how about it? Drmies (talk) 22:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you like. I'm afraid I don't have time to formally report Bad Things at the moment. Feel free to do it yourself though. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:58, 2 February 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.