Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Sampson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --Coredesat 05:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geoffrey Sampson

Geoffrey Sampson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Because the subject has strenously objected to the existence and content of the Wikipedia article on his webpage and in private correspondence (I created the article). The subject is a minor academic figure who has published a critique of the nativist strand of psycholinguistics which is actually rather good, but which nonetheless attracted little critical or commercial attention, and therefore only barely qualifies as "notable". Since he is so incensed by the Wikipedia entry, in light of the requirement that Wikipedia is sensitive on biographical material relating to living authors, and given that the subject is an extremely peripheral figure in any event, it seems reasonable to just delete the entry and be done with it. Mean time, I have removed the majority of the disputed content, making the article very brief indeed. I have notified all other users who have contributed to the article (that is, three of them) of this AfD. ElectricRay 20:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy enough for deletion in light of the above. I do think that the article's existence has some slight merit in documenting the existence and terms of debates over various forms of political correctness, especially racism. Given that the page had included a link to his own webpage,and had been modified in light of the comments made there, I wonder if Professor Sampson has any strong opinions on the current or previous version? If he's reasonably happy it might be worth perpetuating it. HTH Richard Keatinge 21:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep and edit objectively. He's Professor of Natural Language Computing in the Department of Informatics, University of Sussex,and that is notable, not borderline notable. His public career is public. His published works, and the criticisms others make of them are public. All we need do is be objective. I note that he inserted in the article text the line that "Sampson has responded on his own web page to the content of the original version of this Wikipedia article (see References below)." This belongs on the talk page: it is not encyclopedic content. The original content does seem to have contained unsourced and possibly inaccurate negative criticism. The discussion of its accuracy is for the article talk page.
This is not a private individual requesting the removal of negative material about his private life or a public individual requesting the removal of an unrelated past incident. He's an academically based politically active controversialist, and the material discussed concerns his academic and political career. Subjects of articles can correct errors, and insist on the removal of unsourced comment. They do not however get to require that we either write the article to their liking or remove it. He has his blog for the purpose, and he uses it. I see no reason for our article to necessarily "make him happy." DGG (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. English professor at reputable university, published book with several editions, seems likely to meet WP:PROF. The fact that the subject objects to the article does not mean Wikipedia has to delete it, merely make sure it is accurate, unbiased and well sourced. Someone should probably look through previous versions to make sure that anything defamatory is properly removed. Espresso Addict 21:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Seems like a Speedy Keep candidate. As per above, would pass WP:PROF and has been a public figure in academics and politics. Inaccuracy concerns appear to have been addressed. Other than that, subject seems like a bully who complains about others being hypocritical about defending free speech, rationalizes away his own poor fact-checking and then makes a big deal out of easily-corrected mischaracterizations. Canuckle 23:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - but with scrupulous reference to reliably-sourced material and caution about undue weight (e.g. he has a biography and career that don't solely consist of his controversial statements). But his comments and analysis thereof are on record in respectable British newspapers (e.g Guardian, Independent, Times, Telegraph all covered them as newsworthy). I think it was certainly an error to use a polemical article by Hitchens as a major source. So Keep, but get it vetted by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Gordonofcartoon 23:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This academic has been notable for several decades since he was at Lancaster University which should be mentioned. However take care about BLP issues as noted above. --Bduke 00:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Once a person enters the public eye through publication or a notable position, they become notable and are subject to coverage by Wikipedia and other media. Obviously the article must adhere to WP:BLP policies, as well as WP:NPOV. It's not unheard of for subjects of an article to be involved in their creation, so if the person here has an issue, he is invited to contribute to the creation of the article about him, so long as WP:NPOV is maintained, and certain provisions under WP:NOT are also watched. 23skidoo 01:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. per all above uses. James Luftan contribs 02:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sorry, Dr. Sampson is notable and has been for many years. I believe he was somewhat justifiably upset at the "Controversies" section. The spat with Chomsky is definitely notable but we should not just write neutrally, but attribute views about the situation. The UK politics issue wasn't half clear -- did it attract national attention or not? If so, attribute like mad. I'm not sure how "right of reply" works in light of WP:ASR; if there's a policy or guideline, could someone link to it?--Dhartung | Talk 02:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
did it attract national attention or not?
Yep. It was in all the major papers, BBC too, mentioned in a ministerial interview [1], and has also been cited when others, such as Frank Ellis last year, made similar statements in a similar capacity.
But looking at the original article again, I agree that his annoyance was justified; it gave undue weight to the controversies, and drew on a single hostile source for the Chomsky story. Gordonofcartoon 11:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Provided the article is kept in NPOV, the subjetcts opinion on if there should be an article written about him is irrelivent. Particularly since he maintains a personal website which he himself contributes to (so he obvioulsly must not oppose web content about himself). If the professor is notable (and I believe he is), and the article is kept neutral, I say keep.--Kelapstick 10:52, 31 July 2007 (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.