Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Darley-Usmar


 * 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   keep. L Faraone  23:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Victor Darley-Usmar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The subject of this article, Victor Darley-Usmar, requested that the article about him be deleted. Can you please remove the article from Wikipedia? Thanks.
 * Completing incomplete nom by . &mdash; Train2104 (talk • contribs) — and Dea  db  eef  21:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – Subject passes WP:PROF criterion 5. With respect to the subject, he is notable enough for inclusion, and the article is not negatively written. Dea  db  eef  21:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. is the author of this article and has requested its deletion. As there have been no other content contributors (excluding minor/general fixes and categorization), I would have no issue seeing the article deleted as a CSD G7 (author request). I also sway towards deletion as a courtesy since the author is also the subject and sourcing is minimal. No predjudice on recreation if somebody wished to create a properly sourced article that meets notability requirements. -- auburn pilot   talk  03:31, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * While I agree generally (as per below), there have been enough edits from other editors to disqualify the article from G7. The rub is that those edits came after the AFD began. But there's no way to unring that bell. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep as passing both WP:PROF (highly cited researcher) and #C5 (he holds an endowed chair at UAB). I can go along with subject requests in marginal cases but this one is pretty clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * PS I just added some better sources to the article. It turns out that he is also an editor in chief of a journal and may pass #C8 on that basis. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep with a GS h-index of nearly 60, enough for even a highly cited area. The article does not seem offensive. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC).
 * Comment this is somewhat problematic. The article seems to contain information from personal knowledge in violation of WP:NOR, and WP:V. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I just removed some information about his family that should not be in the article without a reliable source. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's quite a bit more (e.g. date of birth, the year can at least be corroborated through www.findmypast.co.uk, as strange as it seems he seems to have an unique name). But yes, we need to strip out the unverified stuff and see if what's left is worth salvaging.  Not in Who's Who, btw. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Subject is, as Xxan and David have said, too notable for us to delete. But perhaps some administrator can apply pending changes or semiprotection to the article as a BLP whose subject has had overly personal information posted on it in the past? Ray  Talk 14:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly notable, so this is not within the discretionary range. But it's standard practice to omit exact day of birth if the subject requests, and leave only the year.  DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Cases like this demonstrate the bankruptcy of WP:PROF. A living individual - whom no independent publishers have heretofore profiled - finds himself the subject of an article in the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. He reasonably requests deletion. Nay, says the wikibureaucracy, because the subject passes the accolade-based criteria at WP:PROF. I personally find WP:PROF to be a very silly, but mostly harmless, policy. All that is needed is WP:N in my view: a subject can be the focus of a neutral article on Wikipedia if and only if it or he has so been elsewhere. When WP:PROF is wrongheadedly taken to trump WP:N, CV-like disasters like this article are the results. Wrongheaded, but mostly harmless, I said. But when the subject himself requests deletion and he does not pass the gold standard of WP:N, the request should be honored. 2604:2000:FFC0:61:21FD:BEA1:28E:AE4C (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. I believe the case for notability here is thin indeed, and trumped by the subject's own request. If the notability were more clear cut, obviously it would be a different question - but I don't think the weight of evidence here supports a keep. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 18:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I am insufficiently familiar with US academic titles (withe every lefcturer being a professor), but I thought that the holder of a named professorship was regardfed as notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 22 May 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.