Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Norman

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, and strongly recommend immediate cleanup to address noted maintenance issues.JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Norman

David Norman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

1) Lack of verifiability, 2)Lack of notability LeyteWolfer (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep on the basis of the significant Trustee/Chairman etc positions running public bodies, which alone meet WP:BIO, even without his business career. I can't see a verifiability issue at all - the article needs referencing but just fancy that - he is indeed Chairman of the Royal Ballet School! Johnbod (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless reliable sources are provided. The link by Johnbod above isn't sufficient to show notability, IMO. Terraxos (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't intended to, but to address the bogus verifiability issue. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

'Bogus' is a weasel word meant to impugn the valid claim that there are no references (no, usenet doesn't count, John) provided in the article to back the numerous claims of notability in the article. And, I've noticed, the above 'proof' has not been added by..ahem...anyone, in order to improve the article. Fancy that. --LeyteWolfer (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there a "Lack of verifiability"? - no there isn't. There may be a lack of people prepared to do the legwork adding referencing, but after my experiment I am confident the many claims to notability in the article could be verified with little difficulty. If you find "bogus" "weasel" let me be plainer; the nomination seems to me to be wrong, mistaken, lazy and incompetent, is that better? Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's watch the rhetoric, John. As you may or may not know, prognosticators quoted on radio, print and the internet have foreseen the 'demise' of Wikipedia due to a) vandalism, b) spam, & c) vanity submissions. As we all agree here, the article is far from encyclopedic ("not yet ready for prime time") and can easily be suspect as a vanity piece. In such a case, a peer review process such as this is definitely warranted and preferable. The request for an AFD review is appropriate. Unless you are using two or more usernames, you don't appear to have an emotional commitment to this article and your statements attributing the peer review to be 'bogus,' 'wrong,' 'mistaken,' 'lazy' and 'incompetent' [QFT] don't appear to assume good faith, nor in keeping with your numerous peer awards. No worries here: random aggression from just any 'joe' has absolutely no effect on me or my day, but I'd dislike seeing Editors with weak constitutions for such comments from being run off when we vandal patrollers are so outnumbered by those that don't have the Wikipedia Project in mind when they strike. Just in case you're having a bad day and to show that there are no hard feelings from this side, here's a smile:

LeyteWolfer (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
We're all on the same team, John!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--LeyteWolfer (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's appreciated. As is plain from the above, I was only more explicit after "bogus" was considered "weasel words". All the same, "wrong" and "mistaken" can hardly be considered breaches of AGF, and the nomination can (I hope you agree) hardly be taken as the most thorough on record. Absolutely no evidence of "verififiability" issues has been produced, and no argumentation as to why the subject is non-notable. It is fairly clear to me that the article has not been produced by anyone connected with the subject, but by one or more of WP's many royals/aristocracy obsessives. It the subject was involved it would no doubt have far more on his career & far less on his wife and son-in-law's relatives. Johnbod (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep, Norman Broadbent seems to be a fairly important transAtlantic firm, and he's been called a "forefather of headhunting"[1] and a "lone ranger"[2]

. Sounds worthy of at least a stub. --Dhartung | Talk 09:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This just looks like fancruft or a self-promotion. I really don't know anything about the guy, but something about the article just rings wrong, makes me doubt its sincerity. --Revanche (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep this is a resume and badly needs clean-up but the positions seem notable enough. And the source Johnbod found helps alot. Article for which sources exist but have not yet been added aren't deleted but instead fixed. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - notable and verified. add sources referenced in this discussion at or before closing. ∴ here…♠ 23:09, 22 January 2008 (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.