Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Sinclair Griffith


 * 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. Wikipedia contributions are praiseworthy but are not a basis for a mainspace article. The IP's suggestion of a brief article pointing to the user page would not be acceptable either: the notability requirement still applies, and links from the main encyclopedia into user-space are discouraged, like cross-namespace redirects, because people (readers) walking round the building (encyclopedia) should not fall through into the pipework (project space). JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Roger Sinclair Griffith

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An autobiographical piece by an editor who, seemingly, feels his edits have bestowed notability upon his good self Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 12:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 12:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 12:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - hopefully a misunderstanding. He can include this info on his user page if he so wishes.  Not convinced about the notability either.  I might be more impressed if he was a prolific author as a historian (either local or railway), writing books with original content, but not Wikipedia articles. Barney the barney barney (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Undecided and I defer to whatever a majority thinks; however, re Barney the barney barney's "Not convinced about the notability either", for notability how does this person compare to another Roger Griffith who has an article on him currently in Wikipedia, viz. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Griffith (an American basketball man)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.170.42.142 (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * that's classic WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes Barney, you are absolutely correct. How RSG compares with that RG who is already in Wikipedia it TOTALLY irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the wiki page on RSG should go.  I realize that and this is why I specifically didn't use that to argue - and indeed said I'm undecided and (not knowing much at all about Wikipedia processes am perfectly happy to follow the opinion of those who know much better.  That said I still do just wonder how Roger S. Griffith's notability compares with the other RG's notability.  I suspect the other RG's is greater but merely by hunch.  As noted, I don't know much about WP and I haven't studied just how persons notability is assessed.  Similar as Cruscoe1818 himself said, we Australians are far to modest to go writing wiki pages about ourselves ... but RSG is not an Australian.  Forgive my naivety please as I'm just learning.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.170.169 (talk) 09:51, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This is outrageous. The only sign of potential notability is the unsourced FSA Scot. Being a Wikipedia editor does not give one the right to publish an autobiography. Citing publications at Books LLC is a disguised form of WP:COPYWITHIN. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 15:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete There's nothing to indicate he meets any of the relevant notability guidelines, but even if he did WP:TNT would still apply. Sideways713 (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. And clearly not a "misunderstanding", the long list of wiki articles is on the userpage & anybody with this number of articles clearly should know wp notability guidelines. Blatant self-promotion.TheLongTone (talk) 16:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete reasons above. Agricola44 (talk) 17:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete - I can certainly appreciate the amount of work this editor has done for Wikipedia and Wikimedia, there is nothing I can find that shows that the article subject meets the notability guidelines. -- &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  17:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - As pe above, wikipedia is not a social networking, and this article seems to be a portfolio or profile to me. Eduemoni↑talk↓  18:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't believe this was de-PRODded. --Randykitty (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello .. re "I can't believe this was de-PRODded", I happen to know some of the reasons why, should anyone wish to know (but they might not be entirely central to the matter of deleting the Roger Sinclair Griffith article).  I do agree that RSG could instead stick all this on his user's page.  I was rather hoping that he might say something himself re his own creation which is surely about to vanish in its present form (and likely, I think, in any form).   I guess it is not possible for him to make if VERY SHORT and in it give reference to his user page where he can stick all the detail he likes?  Basically because he is not considered of sufficient notability .. as I understand from all the discussion here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.170.169 (talk) 09:35, 25 December 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.