Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas H. Leonard


 * 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 Procedurally closed as a malformed nomination that never properly went through the deletion process. For context as to what happened, this was tagged for deletion with a link to a nonexistent AfD, leading to the below confusion. (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 00:48, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

As the creator of this article, I am slightly confused as to why it has been nominated for deletion and why I wasn't contacted about this (Can I draw the nominator's attention to Wikipedia's guidlines in this area?). Multiple independent sources, which are cited in the article, attest to Thomas Leonard's contributions in the field of Bayesian statistics. Other academic statisticians are the subjects of secure wikipedia articles (e.g. Arnold Zellner). Perhaps I should have clarified that, when I cited the two interviews with Leonard, I was really citing the editorial introductions and not Leonard's responses themselves. The latter, of course, would not be appropriately independent.

It would be good to hear from whoever nominated this article for deletion, as, at time of writing, no actual reasons have been presented that support this course of action.--Eystein Thanisch (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

To declare an interest (in response to a now-deleted comment from Organology), Thomas Leonard is my friend. However, I feel that my article has remained neutral and factual. It is a digest of the cited secondary sources (this doesn't include Leonard's website, which I have now removed, again in response to Organology), nothing more, and would invite anyone who feels otherwise to amend it as they see fit.--Eystein Thanisch (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Ok, as is probably apparent, I am pretty new to wikipedia editing. Having read a bit more about the rules and norms in the community, I have come across this statement that one simply "should not" create an article about people to whom one has a personal connection (WP:COISELF). Previously, I had been working from this softer set of guidelines, which imply that it is ultimately acceptable, although not recommended, to do so, as long as the article remains neutral. I apologise and acknowledge that my creation of the article was quite possibly in breach of Wikipedia's agreed COI rules or, at least, that it was needlessly risky to create it without consultation. However, as I have said, I did try to keep the article strictly factual and it would be good if a subject-matter expert could give their opinion on the subject's notability and on the article's balance before it is simply deleted.--Eystein Thanisch (talk) 00:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT an extension of academia.edu.

Can I point out this requirement in the biography of living persons regulations []

There also should be proper acknowledgement of achievements in the bibliography - rather than self-written biog pages, cite the original articles/research.

Can I also draw your attention to another requirement of wikipedia articles - in that one shouldn't write them about ones friends/teachers etc

[] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organology (talk • contribs) 23:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

With the 7 day consultation period relating to this article's deletion pretty much over, it apparently falls to me, as the sole contributor, to sum up. Whatver the merits of the subject or the article, I shouldn't have created the article, given my COISELF. I am sorry and I understand if it needs to be deleted for that reason. If it is retained, hopefully other editors will contribute to ensure balance and improve quality.Eystein Thanisch (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2016 (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.