Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Hyams

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 deleted as copyvio. --Robth^Talk 05:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philip Hyams

Nom & vote ...
Del: n-n - "146 of about 410 " GHits
--Jerzy•t 03:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep: Article is currently tagged as a copyvio, so probably should be processed through that means rather than here (two parallel processes can muck up the works). However, if the copyright issues can be resolved, keep, as subject is notable, both as an author published by a major publishing house and as a film producer. If article is deleted under the copyvio process, it should be able to be recreated as original text appropriate for Wikipedia. Akradecki 04:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Whether del or keep, two parallel processes are desirable despite the effort of keeping them from being mucked up (and perhaps i should have facilitated coordination, tho those closing either will see on the article page, and be aware of, the other):
    1. Copyvio processing of the individual article is a legal obligation of WP. It is also a Good Thing for WP in the long run, as part of a pattern of overall care re copyright issues. Both of these remain true even if AfD's lopsided presumption of retention results in keeping.
    2. Copyvio deletion is deletion w/o prejudice, while AfD deleteion is with prejudice & impedes re-creation if the copyvio issues are resolvable. (Which is in fact likely, altho not so certain that we can ignore the damage to WP's copyvio reputation that accepting the slipshod efforts to (irrelevantly) "grant permission" would do.) In light of the perhaps clueless and in any case nasty misbehaving IP, AfD deletion will get this sick puppy off our front door step more effectively than simple copyvio deletion.

  --Jerzy•t 14:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  

• Delete, merely being published does not make one notable. Very little public discussion occurs about this author. He is simply not notable. Quatloo 13:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - There may be very little public discussion in the U.S., but in Canada and Israel it's a different matter, as a careful reading of internet resources shows. Once the copyvio issue is resolved, I'd be happy to provide the refs. Akradecki 17:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Further info: The anon in question is an attempted covert vandal, via talk-page personal attack, which IMB[iased]O impugns their judgement (e.g. re notability) -- even if generous editors fail to impeach their credibility (re identity and facts re PH).
  --Jerzy•t 14:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  
• (pro-Keep Comment: Article was originally approved as conforming to Wiki biographical content. If biographical content is found elsewhere, this would be entirely plausible. If tagged as a copyvio by a Wiki editor for this reason alone, issue should be resolved by a rewrite. Subject is known both as an author published by a professional pubishing house and film producer. Shraga Ben Ami 18:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the user's first edit; relabeled as non-vote.
    --Jerzy•t 03:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    
• (pro-Keep Comment: If tagged as a copyvio issue should be resolved by advising total rewrite. Who determines the degree of fame required to be famous or "infamous?" Jon Balleti 19:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is the user's first edit, in a flood of apparent meat-puppets sustained for 13 minutes; relabeled as non-vote.
    --Jerzy•t 03:45, 9 October 2006 (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.