Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsay Dey

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. – Joe (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Dey

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

A student of Newington College who was on the board of administrators of a hospital. No achievements relating to medical research or surgical techniques disclosed ADS54 talk 11:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 December 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 11:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. President of a major Sydney Hospital who was awarded an CBE for his service the medicine. Let's all stop and read Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Nominator overlooks the obligation that those who wish to delete on the grounds of notability are required to have made "thorough attempts to find reliable sources" as article content does not determine notability. Secondly, the criteria for deletion is given in Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Reasons_for deletion and says nothing about the motivation of the creator of the article; users are free to create articles relating to their special interests and this is not spamming. Castlemate (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep ~~Weak delete~~ – Fails WP:GNG. Might meet WP:ANYBIO because of potentially widely recognised contributions in medicine, but difficult to say without further reliable sources. In any case, article should be rewritten to better reflect the person's notability. Possibly move to draft-space. Kb.au (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Weak Keep per Aozwie. My other comments still stand. Kb.au (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I think there is just sufficient throughout here for WP:NEXIST to improve the article somewhat and get over the WP:GNG line. Aoziwe (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This is another example of the article creator spamming Wikipedia with articles on non-notable people who just happen to be an alumni of Newington College.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please could we investigate why this editor from Detriot Michigan is so insistent on deleting anyone from a school in Sydney NSW. Castlemate (talk) 08:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Came to the same conclusion as Aoziwe from the same search. Again, article would be much stronger if author had focused less on schoolcruft and more on ensuring some of what Aoziwe linked went into the article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:02, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the attack on the author and an institution I have removed the content referring to the education of the subject. Maybe someone else will deal with the obvious notability of a medico at a hugely notable institution and contribute something rather than delete. Castlemate (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOTINHERITED. A medico at a "hugely notable institution" does not equate to "obvious notability" on Wikipedia: the institution is notable, but whether he is notable depends on him. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Aoziwe. Additionally, CBE is a much more significant award than many of the others that have been cited in similar debates (MBE, etc.), and holders are usually (though not always) notable. Frickeg (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep speedy keep for this matter. She has biographical entry in Who's Who in Australia. He automatically passes WP:ANYBIO #3. The Wjo's is Who in Australia is a national academic reference and equivalent of Dictionary of National Biography. It is authoritative reference material used by academics as a resource that identifies Australia's leading individuals, and as a research tool by journalists and historian. Second, he passes WP:NACADEMIC #2 for being recipient of Commander of the Order of the British Empire, a prestigious national honor. Third, passes WP:NACADEMIC #6 for being member and letter president of major academic society. –Ammarpad (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of have to take issue with some of this. The equivalent of the Dictionary of National Biography is, fairly obviously, the Australian Dictionary of Biography; the Who's Who is more of a directory and does sometimes have non-notable people in it, although it's certainly a clue that more sources might be available. WP:NACADEMIC very clearly specifies an academic award, which the CBE absolutely is not. (There is a much stronger argument that CBE qualifies him for WP:ANYBIO #1.) Also, if you are using the British Medical Association as the "academic society" for NACADEMIC #6, it isn't one - it's a professional society. These are all sort of points arguing for notability, but they seem to have the guidelines all mixed up. Frickeg (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is great you already prefaced it with right words "irritating pedantry"... In as much as hate responding to semantics quibbles or be pedantic myself "Who's Who in Australia " is equally in par with Dictionary of National Biography irrespective of the names. And the fact they included non notable people (which you asserted without evidence) doesn't mean this one is also not notable. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:21, 20 December 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.