Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rick570/St Peter's College list (2nd nomination)

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  delete. MER-C 12:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Rick570/St Peter's College list


I closed WP:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rick570/St Peter's College list as keep, but it has emerged that the second keep !voter was a sockpuppet of the article author (see SPI). I am therefore relisting it, and will notify those who took part in the first MfD. Procedural nomination; I express no opinion. JohnCD (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete both, fails WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Also, I am pretty sure these are recreations or rehash of previous deleted pages (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rick570/New Zealand Christian Brother biographies). -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:29, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete both. They appear to be copies of List of people educated at St Peter's College, Auckland with extra people thrown in of dubious notability.  The claim that this is a launching point for new articles doesn't make sense given that people with articles are in the list, and those that are not linked include all sorts like "Timothy Elliott (born 1970) (Timothy George) Secondary school teacher".  This appears to be more of an attempt to simply list all the alumni whether notable or not. -- Whpq (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The list was mostly completed some years ago. Only those names were added for which there was some reference available. The intention then and now was to gradually work through it to produce substantive articles of notable persons and delete the rest. About 110 articles have been produced. Others were produced but deleted by others. More research is needed to rehabilitate or restore them or finally delete them. The list is not an attmpt to just add every old boy. That is impossible. There must be at least 10,000 of them living. The list is very useful as a resource for other articles. Please keep it.Rick570 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep but blank during periods of inactivity, as a draft working towards notable alumni. Is almost suitable, possibly a list of notable alumni, but it contains far too many non-notable names, many living.  Also consider Alternative outlets.  A complete list of alumni, worked towards, is a valuable thing, but out of scope for Wikipedia.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * List of people educated at St Peter's College, Auckland already exists. duffbeerforme (talk) 09:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per Duffbeerforme. Email the contents to the author on request.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is being maintained as a working fake article. It's not being used as a launching point. Editing history shows otherwise. Links to wikibin are being added for people who were found to be non notable, the most recent this month after the last mfd . Non notable people are being added and contrary to the above claim, it's just not along time ago. More have been added this year . Notable individual with existing articles are being added to this list showing that it's not for the creation of new articles. These notable people are being added to this fake article and the list in mainspace at the same time . All this shows it's meant as a working fake article, not as claimed above by Rick. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment The entries on this page have been very carefully selected and are supported by references. When I have the time I will do the research to produce the articles required. Why is there no wikipedia policy against sheer vindictiveness? Why not look at the facts: there are no breaches of copyright: all entries are referenced from some independent source; and just give me the opportunity to extend and complete the research.Rick570 (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think you are crossing Wikipedia's conservative line for copyright and BLP. You are collecting and publishing too much on private individuals.  I suggest that you do it offline, or at least elsewhere, and do not introduce any information on anyone until can can demonstrate their notability.  Be very mindful of every letter of WP:BLP.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * : CommentMuch of the substantive work was done on other wiki pages a long time ago (mostly in the period 2007-2010). I keep the page updated when some event comes to my attention (a death for example). The page can always be edited by others, including the subjects. But since most of the entries are referenced to publicly-available resources, most of the info is publicly available anyway. As far as I know there have been no complaints to wikipedia or in any other forum about the article. Page-view statistics seem to show a moderate interest in it. The page is not just some inchoate list of names. It has been carefully researched. Why can't it just be left?Rick570 (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To address some of the claims made by Rick.
 * "The entries on this page have been very carefully selected and are supported by references." Francis Cameron, Ian Robert Carroll, Richard Ignatius Carroll and others have no references. Sean Black's supporting reference doesn't mention him. Others such as Gregory Jones have Old Friends, not a good source. Carefully selected? James Armour? What's his claim to notability? That he died in 2011? Greg Zambuca? That he died in 2011? Henryk Wolk, Boleslaw Wojtowicz? List gives no clue. The reference? They're Polish, is that what makes them notable?
 * "there are no breaches of copyright". Thankfully your predilection for copyright violations has not extended to here.
 * "all entries are referenced from some independent source". As mentioned above some have no sources. Others have Old Friends. Not an acceptable source. Then there's Bernard Coyle, referenced to his MSc Thesis, not an independent source. Same with Patrick Cooney. David Dowd to his thesis. None with any sign of notability
 * "Much of the substantive work was done on other wiki pages a long time ago (mostly in the period 2007-2010)." 2007-2010, before this page was started in 2011 . That may be true but non notable people have been added since then. Henryk Wolk, Boleslaw Wojtowicz and others in Dec 2014 . Not a long time ago.
 * Claims not supported by the facts. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Duff appears to have found 8 problematic entries out of (I think) about 500. Why not just delete them to improve the article or do some research to improve it? Why be so unrelentingly negative?Rick570 (talk) 05:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Skirting around the issues again Rick. This is a userspace page being used as a working fake article. The number of problematic entries in the list is secondary. Your complaint about the number is beside the point. Just like when the CCI was started and you complained that I'd identified only 5 violation, knowinf full well that there was a lot mor as yet unidentified.
 * As for your complaint about me identifying only 8? Which 8 of the 12 named is that, why ignore the other 4? duffbeerforme (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There are many more problematic entries. Let's look at A. Every single entry is problematic.
 * F Aisher, no indication of notability, sourced only to a school publication.
 * Peter Antonovich, being a "successful Auckland businessman" is not inherintly notable, appears only sourced to a photo, no verification of the peacocking.
 * James Armour, no indication of notability, sourced only to a school publication.
 * Lucian Armstrong, found to be non notable at afd.
 * Michael Armstrong, no indication of notability, appears sourced only to a school publication and to a photo.
 * Andrew Ashton, no indication of notability, sourced only to Old Friends.
 * The blue linked Nick Afoa, Jordan Arts and Vince Aso just duplicates what appears in List of people educated at St Peter's College, Auckland. They do not belong in a list supposedly there to produce new articles
 * User Space is not for storing your preferred version of disputed content. This list is just a duplicate of the mainspace with extra non notable people and is being maintained as such.
 * Let's also look at your claim "The intention then and now was to gradually work through it to produce substantive articles of notable persons and delete the rest." Many of the people on this list have been found to be non notable at afd yet contrary to your claimed intention have not been deleted. Instead you continue to maintain them on the page as you did just recently . Your actions contridict your words. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Delete Duff's argument accepted. Thanks for your forbearance.Rick570 (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2015 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.