| Revision as of 21:32, 21 August 2007 editMastCell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators43,155 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:54, 22 August 2007 edit undoDGG (talk | contribs)316,874 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ::'''Comment''': While the earlier version is indeed ''longer'', it contains no additional secondary sources. It merely expounds at greater length on Brignell's views - so it suffers from the same lack of ] and compounds that problem by functioning as a ] and ] by regurgitating Brignell's minoritarian views out of context. The older version is actually ''less'' NPOV, because it gives more ] to his views without providing any independent sources to back up their notability. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | ::'''Comment''': While the earlier version is indeed ''longer'', it contains no additional secondary sources. It merely expounds at greater length on Brignell's views - so it suffers from the same lack of ] and compounds that problem by functioning as a ] and ] by regurgitating Brignell's minoritarian views out of context. The older version is actually ''less'' NPOV, because it gives more ] to his views without providing any independent sources to back up their notability. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>—] 20:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)</small> | *<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the ]. </small> <small>—] 20:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)</small> | ||
| *'''Keep''' His primary career was notable. For some reason, a recent ed. removed the discussion of it from the article. I have just restored it. That material is considered reliable--an official site is an adequate source. What he may have been doing since then--its a question of the reviews of his books. If he is regarded as an important guy who got things wrong, he's notable. | |||
Revision as of 02:54, 22 August 2007
John Brignell
- John Brignell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Non-notable; fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. The only secondary sources ever provided are critical, and consist of links to Tim Lambert's blog and to brief coverage in the Skeptic's Dictionary. This is not "non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources." The article is a WP:COATRACK and POV fork to present Brignell's minoritarian views out of context. MastCell 16:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- weak delete, based on Brignell being certainly less notable than Lambert William M. Connolley 16:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There's literally nothing here. Primary sources like Brignell's self-published books and his personal web page can't sustain an article. wikipediatrix 18:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- The article is poor, and POV-biased against the subject of the biography. But the solution is to fix it. The initial version was actually quite good. Unfortunately, the solid informational content has been deleted, and replaced by almost nothing at all, except a couple of blatantly POV attacks on the subject of the biography. My vote is against deletion; rather, the article should be restored to its earlier, substantive, NPOV form. NCdave 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: While the earlier version is indeed longer, it contains no additional secondary sources. It merely expounds at greater length on Brignell's views - so it suffers from the same lack of notability and compounds that problem by functioning as a POV fork and WP:COATRACK by regurgitating Brignell's minoritarian views out of context. The older version is actually less NPOV, because it gives more undue weight to his views without providing any independent sources to back up their notability. MastCell 21:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 20:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep His primary career was notable. For some reason, a recent ed. removed the discussion of it from the article. I have just restored it. That material is considered reliable--an official site is an adequate source. What he may have been doing since then--its a question of the reviews of his books. If he is regarded as an important guy who got things wrong, he's notable.