Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Martin (garden designer)


 * 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 (non-admin close)  Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 17:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

William Martin (garden designer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This individual does not appear to pass our WP:BIO guidelines. It is claimed that he is in multiple publications, but none of these are readily available. And claims to be the subject and does not want the page here. — Ryulong ( 竜龙 ) 09:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Just searched Wigandia. Plenty of material out there to justify an article. For example Whether he wants the page here isn't an issue as long as we respect WP:BLP. That said the article as it stands has very obvious POV issues. Articles that refer to their subject by their given name are annoying so I'm changing that. Won't affect AfD but will irritate me less. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 15:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep As per above, subject cited in The Garden, Jan 2005; House and Garden, May 2004; and Better Homes and Gardens (Australia), Dec 2002. This meets the brightline for WP:CREATIVE.  As Tigerboy1966 states, the subject's desire to have or not have an article is irrelevant within the guidelines of WP:BLP.  Σ Α Π Φ (Sapph) Talk 17:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Passes WP:BIO. The subject not wanting the article to exist is irrelevant. SL93 (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to be clear in case of WP:COI that I had never heard of WM before 5 December, but I did do some work on it after it came up for nomination as I thought he seemed like an interesting chap. I'm not withdrawing "keep" but closing admin might want to take my involvement into account when evaluating my contribution to this discussion. Tigerboy1966 (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment +1 - I see absolutely no COI here, but I applaud your 'Better be safe than sorry' approach, Tigerboy1966. Colon el Tom 11:06, 11 December 2011 (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.