Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roland Sparkes


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Roland Sparkes

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article has citations, but all the citations are from one website, which causes me to doubt the notability of the subject. After all, if the subject was so pre-eminent, he'd be mentioned in multiple sources, wouldn't he? Quanticle (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. no third party coverage of this individual . LibStar (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I am the subject of this article. I consider the content of this article is fair. I am happy for it to remain. Why would deletion be necessary? Sorry, I am unclear. I think I feel I am noteworthy in the context of a local historian. Other sources can be provided and added as references. I am regularly mentioned in the Sutton Guardian newspaper. I have been featured in an official council newsletter to residents. I have been used as a consultant by the local council's Planning dept. My recent book has been described as "excellent" by the head of London Borough of Sutton 's environment, heritage and libraries services.--Roland Sparkes (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * the "excellent" comment is from Twitter, a clear breach of WP:RS, not to mention WP:AUTOBIO. LibStar (talk) 13:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added various other verifiable sources as references for this article.--Roland Sparkes (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. in addition to LibStar's comments above, the article subject does not fulfil any of the criteria WP:ACADEMIC since research and work is limited only to a very small part of the suburbs of London. Furthermore, although failing the following guideline does not automatically mean non-notability, the self-published nature of the book and the extremely local subject matter means the book is non-notable and so therefore is the author, as it is this academic research that the article proposes brings the subject notability.


 * In addition, I would suggest that there is also a potential conflict of interest (beyond that which appears in the comment above with the article creator. Their only edits have been to the subject in question and two other articles (Carl Warburg and Warburg's Tincture) both specifically noted as the chosen area of expertise of this article's subject). I would go so far as to state that this article was created by a member of the Belmont Local History Group adding NPOV concerns too.


 * I am sure Mr Sparkes does much worthwhile work, but the fact remains that his field of expertise is restricted to the very local and does not reach the required standards of notability required by WP. Fenix down (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please be advised that I did not self-publish the publication, 'Belmont: A Century Ago'. Although I wrote and did some design work, it was published by Ashworth Publications (a registered publisher in the UK) in association with, and under the auspices of the Belmont Local History group. I will correct this part of the article text--Roland Sparkes (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, please note that I am not 'merely' a local historian. The subject of Warburg's Tincture and its creator, Dr Carl Warburg, are of national and international importance. Therefore, my research and published articles on this subject are likewise of national and international relevance and are noteworthy in the context of medical history. I am probably the foremost expert on the history regarding this important anti-malarial medicine and the life of Dr Carl Warburg. I consider myself primarily as a historian, not a local historian. Over the past decade the vast majority of my research has focussed on Dr Warburg's tincture rather than local history matters. I shall amend the article to reflect this.

Therefore, I think this article should remain. --Roland Sparkes (talk) 00:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please also note that The Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain have invited me to write an article concerning Warburg's Tincture and Dr Warburg for their journal and museum archives.--Roland Sparkes (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: My work on Warburg's Tincture and Dr Warburg extends far beyond the local aspects. The subject and the nature of my research on and interest in this subject is of the national and international scale Thus my work is not "restricted to the very local".--Roland Sparkes (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Regarding your clarifications above, I must firstly point out the obvious conflict of interest as you are both the article's subject, the author of the majority of references, purely as a warning as to the weight that may be attached to your comments by others. Regarding your more detailed additions to the article regarding your academice history, I think the following points need to be made re notability:


 * 1. Wikipedia edits aren't acceptable as a means of establishing notability (for the same reasons that inter-wiki referencing is not acceptable), otherwise, logically, any editor would be notable. You should probably remove this from the article, though this is entirely up to you.


 * 2. Regarding your works on Belmont. I do not use the word "local" in a derogatory sense, but your self-penned article acknowledges that these works are focused on a specific local area and have been published in the main by locally based publishers / groups. It is difficult to see how these articles, despite being numerous and no doubt a valuable record of the history of Belmont, would fulfill any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. the criteria I feel you come closest to fulfilling is number 1, but I don't think you meet that since your Belmont-related work is inherently local and it would be difficult to put forward a successful arguement that it had had a significant impact on the study of British or even London / South England history. Please note that in order to indicate this you will need to demonstrate coverage / discussion of your articles in other verifiable third party sources.


 * 3. The work published by Ashworth Publications is this one I presume. With the greatest respect, I do not think that a 37 page book on a local area would be significant enough, even with the other articles you have published, to establish notability under WP:AUTHOR unless you can indicate using verifiable third party sources that it is a significant work and has been widely cited by your peers. I have been unable to find a web address for Ashworth Publishers and though this is not the be all and end all, it does raise questions over the significance of the publication from a wikipedia standpoint.


 * 4. With regards to your work on Warburg and his tincture, I am afraid that your opinion that your work is of "national and international importance" (surely just international?!) is not relevant. I am certain there is much useful information on the subject in your papers, information that could usefully inform an article on Warburg or his Tincture, however, you need to again cite discussion of or reference to your papers in other verifiable third-party sources in order to assert your notability as an individual, the fact that you have written about a notable individual / item does not confer notability on yourself automatically. Given that your article indicates that you have only published four papers on the subject, it would be difficult ot justify your notability under WP:ACADEMIC since it would be difficult to indicate how this was considered significant without considerable third party references to your work.


 * 5. Finally, I also note that your claim to published papers relating to Warburg is unreferenced and I was unable to locate an online copy, so in its current state this claim could not be used to justify notability anyway. Fenix down (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment a number of guidelines are relevant here regarding Roland Sparkes self editting. WP:COI, WP:POV, WP:OWN, WP:NOTRESUME and clearly WP:AUTOBIO. the use of twitter as a reference is clearly a breach of WP:RS. LibStar (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Re: point 2 by Fenix down, please note that the in questions article was not "self-penned" by me. It was added by another. I only made slight edits for accuracy and, as requested by thsi discussion article, added verifiable references.

Can I enquire or query why the Academic criteria is being applied. Does not this only apply to university professors, researchers and lecturers? Please note that I am not a professional academic in that sense, nor have I purported to be so.

In regard to notability, as the subject of the article clearly is not appropriate for me to decide or to explicitly debate. However, it appears that based on Wikipedia's notability criteria, it is probably my work on Warburg's Tincture and Dr Carl Warburg which is more likely to satisfy that criteria, rather than my local history work. Please note that my work on Warburg's Tincture etc is not based on the local history aspects but on the general and international.

--Roland Sparkes (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment. The Academic criteria was suggested as merely one of the ways in which an individual such as yourself could assert their notability. I don't believe Wikipedia differentiates between professional and amateur academics, I believe that your work would be classed as academic and so it would be correct to consider the article under those criteria. The author criteria is another means. You do not have to fulfil criteria in both to be deemed notable, though you would have to fulfil at least one in one category.

I agree with you that you would be more likely to fulfil notability requirements based on your work on Warburg. However, you will need to show, not just that you have written papers, but that those papers are notable. In this instance, it would be easiest to do this by indicating with verifiable sources that they have been discussed or cited in other peer reviewed journals, or significant stand-alone works. I don't think that there is any doubt that you have written on a notable subject (though it would be very useful to see references for your published papers on Warburg in the article), in order for an individual to warrant their own article, one needs to show that their work is notable in itself, not just that they have written about a notable subject. Fenix down (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as nothing has been shown to establish notability of this person. I do not believe WP:AUTOBIO has been violated as the article was not created by Mr. Sparkes, but certainly WP:COI has. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 18:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I see no hits showing notability in online searches. The article itself doesn't have references that establish notability outside of a very local context. What worries me most, though, is that the biographical information in what seems to be a BLP is totally unverified, and seems implausible. Are we to believe that Mr. Sparkes is over 130 years old? Perhaps he was born in 1976, and not 1876, but those are the kind of unverifiable biographical details that make this article unacceptable. --  At am a  頭 19:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete clearly fails WP:BIO, WP:AUTHOR. N.B. WP:AUTO applies to any participation in editing an article about oneself, not just creation of such article. ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No serious claims to notability as an author or under WP:PROF. The work on Warburg seems to be that of a hobbyist, and published in articles in a local newspaper and on a local website. Supposing that the subject does write an   article on it in a professional journal, one such article would not establish either as author or academic. The others in the local newspaper does not establish such notability either. The book on Belmont was praised only by those in the same town, and also does not establish notability either. It is not in any UK union catalog, nor in the British Library. This is an excellent demonstration of why we do not generally consider such sources as reliable for purposes of notability, for they often do not seem to show any editorial independence. .   I am unwilling to argue for deleting an article due to a typo in a date, but I find it remarkable that an article in Wikipedia should claim notability  for the subject partially on the basis of having written a few articles in   Wikipedia.    DGG ( talk ) 20:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I have to contradict you, the book 'Belmont: A Century Ago' is held by the British Library. I sent it to them! I believe legal deposit rules in the UK require it.--Roland Sparkes (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I suppose I should more precisely say that they have not cataloged it for their collection.   DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per all the notability issues raised. I've searched NewsBank (UK newspaper online archive) and found nothing more than very short articles in local press. Plaudits from local press are meaningless: has anyone ever seen a local paper give a negative review of a book by an author on its patch? A little Googling (hint: Facebook) suggests further COI in the article creation by . Related articles need looking at: Belmont, Sutton, for instance, has major hype for Roland Sparkes. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have used a lot of the text from the proposed deleted article about me, and added it to my Wikipedia User Page, to provide information about my work. I trust that okay and not against Wikipedia guidelines??? (No doubt, someone will correct if this is wrong.) That is probably a more appropriate place. --Roland Sparkes (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that violates the userpage policy as it states that your userpage must be about you as a Wikipedian and any Wikipedia related activities. Referencing anything outside of Wikipedia would not conform, per item #7 (and possibly #8 as well, sorry.  Please also see the notice I have placed on your talkpage re: your userpage content.  I have included some info and a link or two that might assist you.  ArcAngel (talk) (review) 21:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're correct in your quoting of the userpage policy, but in practice we're actually pretty lax about what people put on their user pages. Editors can't put anything they want, but biographical information is permitted in most cases. (Detailed biographical info on a minor's user page would probably be removed, though, and a page that's heavily promotional might just be deleted.) Personally, I try to keep my user page strictly about info relevant to Wikipedia, but I think an author talking about his work is totally appropriate here. --  At am a  頭 02:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I created the article on Roland Sparkes with only good intentions. I am sorry if it is not consistent with certain Wikipedia rules.--E Clunie (talk) 22:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't sweat it, we have a guideline that says not to bite new editors when they make mistakes, and you're not expected to be perfect from the start. I just hope this experience hasn't discouraged you from being interested in making future contributions to Wikipedia, you're more than welcome to. --  At am a  頭 02:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  —LibStar (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2010 (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.