Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John E. Pike

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 Delete per lack of notability. (1 == 2)Until 17:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John E. Pike

John E. Pike (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

No assertion of notability, despite source requests for nine months. MSJapan (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The nominator suggests, intentionally or not, that the more exacting criterion WP:CSD#A7 would apply, but it does not. The citation of his roles in the two organizations, both with WP articles, asserts notability. Dhartung's evidence, below, shows that the article is non-deletable under even AfD.
No deadlines to expand exist, bcz non-expansion can result from either non-notability or failure of the appropriate editors to volunteer themselves into the editor corps.
--Jerzy•t 03:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
And deletability is not a property of the present content of an article, but rather of the topic and the article that could (or couldn't) be written on that topic.
--Jerzy•t 04:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:N. Security consultants aren't usually famous, since they like to work so that others are unaware of them even being there. Therefore this person, to me, isn't that notable outside of the field he works in. ArcAngel (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The first 'graph of the cited page says
    The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice". This concept is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity",....
    so lack of fame is irrelevant to the question we are considering.
    In fact, John Dee (a security consultant, too, i think) is someone i've only heard of (other than on WP) only once from a history buff and once incidentally in a PBS documentary. He has a featured article of 14 secns and subsecns (and a talk pg, with a wide variety of discussants besides a devotee or two). Not famous, but notable.
    In the line of contemporary experts on national security issues (both with military rather than physical sciences background, as it happens), we have Edward Luttwak, Anthony Cordesman and Victor Davis Hanson whose visibilities are subjectively comparable to Pike's.
    --Jerzy•t 03:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable. TreasuryTag talkcontribs 20:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Non-notabilty is primarily a matter of lacking sufficient material. That must be determined by examining the material available. I have not done so, but to establish non-notability, someone must. There is no sign that the del-advocates have even glanced at the results of this Google test:
    about 183,000 for "John E. Pike" OR "John Pike" GlobalSecurity OR "Global Security" OR federation.
    (The unusual inclusion with the first hit among those 100s of thousands, of an annotation by Google with 8 lks, i believe each on a WP-notable topic, is also suggestive of notability. And this G-Test, within the site of the Federation of American Scientists, is at least provocative:
    about 3,900 from www.fas.org for "john pike" OR "john E pike".
    --Jerzy•t 03:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Pike is a frequent quote-generator for national security articles, and is known for founding GlobalSecurity.org. It's unclear what, if any, notability his private security consultancy has. unless there are sufficient sources, redirect to GlobalSecurity.org may be best. --Dhartung | Talk 21:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    • That "quote generation" precludes deletion, per the third bullet point at WP:BIO#Creative professionals. That said, Dhartung's (unjustified) mergist-oriented proposal would set up no significant barrier to the right editor plowing into those G-hits and creating an article that suits that topic's potential, and would not be a big deal.
      --Jerzy•t 03:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Relax, I was just setting up a fallback position. "Mergist"? --Dhartung | Talk 05:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "Relax"? Yeah, i remember hearing of that before; i'll try & remember what it means.
Back in the Clone Wars, i'm never sure how many advocates it had/has, but there was a position between Deletionism and Retentionism that i understood as amounting to "when in doubt, make the disputed article a Rdr, and merge its content into that of the target of the redirect." (I generally call myself a Mergist with Deletionist tendencies. So i don't think i insulted you.) It just occurred to me that the perfect parody of the position may be "Well, extermination camps are crimes against humanity, but if you lock up all those n-n musicians inside their n-n bands, you've drastically reduced the noise level, and with no harm done."
--Jerzy•t 13:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable for his roles in two notable orgs, and his frequency of citation; also for the likelihood that the voluminous material available on-line will flesh out the bio nicely. Note details above.
    --Jerzy•t 03:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge, not notable outside of GlobalSecurity.org. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:47, 9 March 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.