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 delete. Going with the deletes based on the opinions of experienced editors. If someone wants this drafted, I'm happy to do it. But, so far I'm not being convinced to note this as a "draftify" close.
Missvain (
talk)
17:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Userfy. I agree that he isn't notable: there are too few citations for an
WP:NSCHOLAR pass, and the press coverage is too insubstantial for GNG purposes. Perhaps a case of
WP:TOOSOON. But since this is part of a Wiki Ed class project, it seems inappropriate to just throw it in the trash. Per
WP:USERFY#YES, userfication can be used for content that is "inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia" but not otherwise objectionable. The class project can be graded in userspace, and if Fish ever becomes notable, we'll at least have a start for the article. This seems like a more compassionate solution than simply deleting the article. See
WP:DBTN.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
21:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Question. Is there any indication of
WP:NARTIST? (As participants here know, this would generally require multiple reviews of multiple works or similar.) I agree that there's no indication of
WP:NPROF or GNG notability.
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
10:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Whilst I'm not wholly opposed to draftifying, I'm not convinced based on the evidence so far that there will be enough substance to establish notability any time soon, and I don't see why this should sit in drafts indefinitely waiting for Mr Fish to one day 'maybe possibly' become notable. (I for one also don't see why student projects should be assessed for notability etc. more leniently than other articles, sympathetic as I otherwise am to student projects, in principle.) As it stands, fails
WP:GNG /
WP:ANYBIO. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
05:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete or draftifty. No sign whatsoever of
WP:NPROF or GNG, and no evidence of
WP:NARTIST. This points towards delete. The best argument for draftifying is that searching for the name of the subject is difficult, so it is plausible that we've missed some reviews (and should give the article originator time to find them).
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
09:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)reply
KeepThe Guidelines state, “’significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded’[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person’s life. ‘Notable’ in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary.” Also, “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]” Subject seems to satisfy these criteria. And more people is better than fewer; it makes for a richer document and data set in the long run. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lunation (
talk •
contribs)
20:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC) —
Lunation (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Delete. No evidence of academic notability. A brief burst of media hype for a supposed new musical instrument is not really enough for notability for the instrument (if it were I'd suggest a redirect instead of delete) and definitely not for Fish either, and besides the minor real-name kerfuffle that's all we have here. The self-promotion on display is also problematic. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
20:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)reply
@David_Eppstein no self promotion here (see the beginning of my statement where I flag myself as the individual in question in order to make this clear so there's no ambiguity). Didn't create the page, and didn't request that it be created. Someone else decide it was worth creating, and it seemed a little silly to not provide relevant information. It is certainly to the Wikipedians here to make the decision. Just providing what information is already out there.
Sandsfish (
talk)
21:53, 28 May 2021 (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.
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 delete. Going with the deletes based on the opinions of experienced editors. If someone wants this drafted, I'm happy to do it. But, so far I'm not being convinced to note this as a "draftify" close.
Missvain (
talk)
17:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)reply
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to
assume good faith on the part of others and to
sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Userfy. I agree that he isn't notable: there are too few citations for an
WP:NSCHOLAR pass, and the press coverage is too insubstantial for GNG purposes. Perhaps a case of
WP:TOOSOON. But since this is part of a Wiki Ed class project, it seems inappropriate to just throw it in the trash. Per
WP:USERFY#YES, userfication can be used for content that is "inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia" but not otherwise objectionable. The class project can be graded in userspace, and if Fish ever becomes notable, we'll at least have a start for the article. This seems like a more compassionate solution than simply deleting the article. See
WP:DBTN.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk)
21:35, 22 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Question. Is there any indication of
WP:NARTIST? (As participants here know, this would generally require multiple reviews of multiple works or similar.) I agree that there's no indication of
WP:NPROF or GNG notability.
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
10:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete Whilst I'm not wholly opposed to draftifying, I'm not convinced based on the evidence so far that there will be enough substance to establish notability any time soon, and I don't see why this should sit in drafts indefinitely waiting for Mr Fish to one day 'maybe possibly' become notable. (I for one also don't see why student projects should be assessed for notability etc. more leniently than other articles, sympathetic as I otherwise am to student projects, in principle.) As it stands, fails
WP:GNG /
WP:ANYBIO. --
DoubleGrazing (
talk)
05:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete or draftifty. No sign whatsoever of
WP:NPROF or GNG, and no evidence of
WP:NARTIST. This points towards delete. The best argument for draftifying is that searching for the name of the subject is difficult, so it is plausible that we've missed some reviews (and should give the article originator time to find them).
Russ Woodroofe (
talk)
09:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)reply
KeepThe Guidelines state, “’significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded’[1] within Wikipedia as a written account of that person’s life. ‘Notable’ in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary.” Also, “People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other,[5] and independent of the subject.[6]” Subject seems to satisfy these criteria. And more people is better than fewer; it makes for a richer document and data set in the long run. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Lunation (
talk •
contribs)
20:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC) —
Lunation (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
Delete. No evidence of academic notability. A brief burst of media hype for a supposed new musical instrument is not really enough for notability for the instrument (if it were I'd suggest a redirect instead of delete) and definitely not for Fish either, and besides the minor real-name kerfuffle that's all we have here. The self-promotion on display is also problematic. —
David Eppstein (
talk)
20:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)reply
@David_Eppstein no self promotion here (see the beginning of my statement where I flag myself as the individual in question in order to make this clear so there's no ambiguity). Didn't create the page, and didn't request that it be created. Someone else decide it was worth creating, and it seemed a little silly to not provide relevant information. It is certainly to the Wikipedians here to make the decision. Just providing what information is already out there.
Sandsfish (
talk)
21:53, 28 May 2021 (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.