Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry R. Clarke (2nd nomination)

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. As usual, if a non-COI, non-sock editor wants to revive this after finding more sources, leave me a message. At this time however consensus is clearly against him being sufficiently notable. So Why 07:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barry R. Clarke

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable puzzler. One review is linked, for one of his books, but I did not find any others. No inherent notability, no passing the GNG, no passing PROF/AUTHOR guidelines. Drmies (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2017 (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.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete - Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG, and his papers don't seem to be cited much (if at all), thus making it fail WP:PROF. RileyBugz ^会話 _投稿記録 22:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. My feeling is that as the author of this many books from good publishers, he should be notable. But I tried and failed to find reliably-published reviews of the other books, independent sourcing for his telegraph column, etc., that could be used as evidence of notability. One review (all we have now) is not evidence of notability, and I don't have anything else. AfD participants should note that the article used to be much more detailed (see e.g. this earlier version) but I removed most of it as unsourced and unverifiable, although I have no reason to doubt the truth of any of it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

** Definite delete. It appears to attract internet bullies. BRC ((struck !vote from sockpuppet of Barryispuzzled (talk · contribs) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - he's been contributing to the Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Times for decades (which would qualify him for a redirect to one or the other of those papers, but since we can't do both it has to be a "keep"). Because he tends to work in the background and not go around granting interviews to The Guardian, he comes up short in a web search. Nevertheless, I think there are sources hiding out there that can confirm his journalistic career, it's just going to be a bit of a slog finding them. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have looked for such sources without success, so I am not as optimistic as you about their existence. The purported source you added (one of his own columns) is no good; we need confirmation not just that he wrote for one periodical once but that he has been a long-time regular columnist. And given the history of self-promotion associated with this article it would be best for such sources to be completely independent (e.g. not just blurbs from his books). —David Eppstein (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A Train^talk 12:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since I first commented on this AfD, Barry Clarke has begun haranguing me by email and, after I repeatedly requested him to provide better sourcing than we have, has instead proceeded to physical threats ("I've no doubt whatsoever that you wouldn't be so cocky if we were in the same room"). Needless to say, this is not helping to persuade me that keeping this marginal article is an improvement to the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A prolific writer who has authored a number of books and has been cited in other people's books [1]. And Adoil Descended (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And Adoil Descended can you be more specific about which notability criterion is satisfied by being a prolific writer, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I? What's in it for me? And Adoil Descended (talk) 23:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, comments at AfDs are given more weight when they are grounded in policies and guidelines. I would think you would want your comments to be given more weight. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now we're getting into fat jokes? :) And Adoil Descended (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cited by independent sources [2], [3], and [4] for WP:SUSTAINED. Prendergast246 — Prendergast246 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hey Home Lander, I'm new here cos I'm responding to a message board request for research assistance. Prendergast246 —Preceding undated comment added 01:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found another citation (scroll down) in support of WP:NRVE [5] Prendergast246 —Preceding undated comment added 08:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A work cited in Transactions on Education (2002), p.3 [6] Prendergast246 —Preceding undated comment added 09:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Note II in this online citation [7] Prendergast246

This from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (scroll down to bottom, Other Internet Resources) [8] Prendergast246 —Preceding undated comment added 09:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's even a bestselling book 'Challenging Logic Puzzles Mensa' [9] Prendergast246 —Preceding undated comment added 09:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation in 'International Conference on Distance Learning' (2007) (scroll to bottom) [10] Prendergast246 —Preceding undated comment added 09:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reading list published by McGraw-Hill (scroll down to 'Vacation Reading') [11] Prendergast246 —Preceding undated comment added 09:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this link is more interesting. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether it's worth it to even respond to someone who starts out by accusing themself of meatpuppetry, but let's look at Prendergast246's supposed sources anyway. (1,2,4) promotional materials on books by other people that feature pull quotes by Clarke. No content about Clarke. (3) A magazine puzzle column in which some of the individual columns were written by Clarke. No material about Clarke, not even explaining whether he is a regular columnist for the magazine. (5) a single low-quality academic journal article about someone else's puzzle and its connection to the TSP, also mentioning a puzzle by Clarke that is connected to the TSP. No information about Clarke. (6) A spammy web-scraper blog post that copies one of Clarke's puzzles. Again, no information about Clarke. (7) An encyclopedia page that has an external link (not a reference) to a web page maintained by Clarke on a similar topic. Are we keeping Wikipedia articles about anyone who wrote a web page that someone else ever linked to, now? (8) an image search results page, (8) a link to an empty pdf file, and (9) a school worksheet of unknown provenance that mentions his book in passing as additional reading. None of this amounts to notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Telegraph puzzlist (3 million readership), Prospect magazine puzzlist (30,000 readership, copy sent to all MPs), amazon book bestseller (must be over 70,000 copies for that). Surely that's 'notable' (well-known). FleischerDan (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC) — FleischerDan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The fact that he writes puzzles for big newspapers doesn't help us write a verifiable encyclopaedia article, and given the long history of problematic editing surrounding this BLP, it really does need to be solidly sourced. At the end of the day we don't appear to have sufficient sources about Clarke to meet WP:ANYBIO, so despite his accomplishments it has to go. – Joe (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's criteria for notability; whilst I see many people saying he must meet it, I don't see anyone pointing to a specific notability guide and saying where this subject meets it. --Ifnord (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2017 (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.