Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Morris (engineer)

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. postdlf (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Morris (engineer)

Roger Morris (engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search doesn't bring up anything particularly notable. Only reference is an obituary.

(Page creator has a history of creating articles later speedy-deleted due to vanity and promotion.) Holdek (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently The Times obits currently online directly from The Times only go back to 2007, at least that is what their index said. --Bejnar (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In any event, the general notability guideline requires multiple references. --Holdek (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:OUTCOMES, an obituary in a major national broadsheet newspaper (The Times) is sufficient to confirm notability. It is available online in the Times Online archive if you know how to access it. UK editors can usually access this via their library - if you can't that's your problem, not everyone else's. Even if it wasn't online however, then paper sources are still OK. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say that in WP:OUTCOMES? Holdek (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OUTCOMES is previous WP:OUTCOMES. See? Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Holdek (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Familiarity with Wikipedia policies is a tad helpful when you are trying to delete someone's good work. This isn't my problem; it's yours. Trying to delete an article so without any justification whatsoever is rather rude. But anyway; FYI: We consistently keep articles that are sourced to obituaries in major national newspapers. We don't judge on notability; rather we let the professionals do the judging and follow them. This is WP:OUTCOMES. If you have any questions about this, please let me know.
Secondly, that you can't find the obituary on the Internet is not my problem either, but again it is yours. I found the obituary in about 2 minutes via Gale. (Roger Morris; Obituary The Times (July 12, 2001): News: p21). If you are based in the UK, using a library card to find sources is basically Wikipedia 101. If you have any questions, then please let me know. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please remain civil. Holdek (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am being perfectly civil, but I do find that responding to every point with another demonstration of your ignorance is somewhat unbecoming and that whining about "civility" is generally indicative that you've lost the argument. Capiche? Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded to this on your talk page. Holdek (talk) 09:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With a template for disruptive editing. What a joke. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. @Holdek: please do not use a disruptive editing template on another editor's talkpage unless he is actually editing disruptively. This is most certainly not acceptable practice. One cannot edit disruptively in a discussion unless one is posting utterly irrelevant nonsense. Your discussion seems to have become somewhat heated, but that is not disruptive to Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia policy, incivility falls under disruptive editing. --Holdek (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, read WP:DTTR you'll benefit from it. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it. I find WP:TR more convincing. But anyway, that was the second warning; the first one wasn't templated. --Holdek (talk) 12:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you read it, you obviously didn't benefit. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Holdek: Did you actually bother to read the template you left? Because it really is not appropriate to this situation. Nothing has been reverted or removed and there is no dispute over content, only a disagreement in a discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't revert or remove Barney's comments because, while they come pretty close, I don't think they reach the level of personal attack, just incivility. In any event, I think the discussion here should get back to whether this article should be deleted or not. If you want to talk to me about templates and so forth, let's do so on my talk page. Holdek (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Indeed, we have always held that an obit in a major newspaper confirms sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. It not being available to all online is utterly and completely irrelevant to notability (and, since I do have access, I can confirm it does exist and it is a full obit). -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one is denying that the obituary doesn't exist. What is trying to be explained is that an obituary in The Times, or any newspaper, by itself is not enough criteria to determine that the subject was notable. The reason why it doesn't fulfill GNG may best be illustrated by this interesting article from the New York Times about its obituary publishing process, arguably the most selective in the world: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/someone-dies-but-that-is-only-the-beginning.html?_r=0 --Holdek (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, an obit in at least one major national newspaper has always been taken to prove notability at AfD. No reason why that should change because you don't happen to agree with it. Also note that phrases like "What is trying to be explained" may be considered patronising, especially by editors with considerable experience on Wikipedia. Best to avoid them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your evidence that "an obit in a major national newspaper has always been taken to prove notability at AfD?" Holdek (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I've participated in many AfDs! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roger_Morris_(engineer)&oldid=1138313656"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Morris (engineer), released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.