articles For Deletion/Timothy Simmons

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.

Owen× ☎ 07:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Simmons

Timothy Simmons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No useful secondary sources. Very little content. Per WP:PRIMARY: "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Amounts to a Pseudo-biography: "An article under the title of a person's name should substantially be a full and balanced biography of that person's public life" AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 16:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Slovenia and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Doesn't meet WP:GNG. There's only three sentences total. — Maile (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep satisfies #1 criteria of WP:ANYBIO, however it's a very short stub and I'm not opposing deletion either. A09|(talk) 20:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANYBIO does not override GNG: it makes that explicitly clear - "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. AusLondonder (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This one fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 10:19, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, an ambassador with no significant coverage in independent secondary sources (WP:BIO) does not merit inclusion on en-wiki. The CVO honorific should have generated coverage, but it hasn't, which is further proof that this individual is not notable under our guidelines, and AusLondoner is perfectly right in pointing out that ANYBIO does not supersede BIO, we have to strike a balance when they seemingly disagree. Pilaz (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Supposedly holder of the CVO, which has pretty much always been considered to confer notability per WP:ANYBIO #1. ANYBIO doesn't supersede BIO (or vice versa) because it's part of BIO! They are not separate guidelines. However, I have been unable to find any indication in the London Gazette that he did receive the CVO, which is very surprising. The Queen made a state visit to Slovenia in 2008 and he may have got it then, but you would still expect an official record of the fact. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It has at no stage been considered to confer notability. That's simply not true. This was discussed recently at Wiki talk:Notability (people).
  WP:ANYBIO states in black and white that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards...conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Please stop repeatedly misrepresenting what ANYBIO says. AusLondonder (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Assuming he was awarded a CVO, it must have been between 2004 and 2020, which is when the source that cites the CVO, was last updated. This announcement from 2004 doesn't reference the CVO. Pilaz (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It has at no stage been considered to confer notability. That's simply not true. This was discussed recently at Wiki talk:Notability (people). It has been discussed several times on talkpages and a consensus has never been attained one way or the other. Please stop repeatedly misrepresenting what ANYBIO says. I'm not. I'm restating general consensus at AfD, as you very well know. Please "stop repeatedly misrepresenting" what I say. Assuming he was awarded a CVO, it must have been between 2004 and 2020, which is when the source that cites the CVO, was last updated. According to Who's Who it was conferred in 2008, as I said above. As I have also said above, I have been unable to find it in the London Gazette, which is surprising if it was conferred. You will notice (if you botherered to check) that I have not expressed a "keep" opinion on that basis. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If you read the discussion at Wiki talk:Notability (people) many editors were incredulous at the suggestion that ANYBIO confers notability and eliminates the need for significant, in-depth coverage in multiple secondary sources. As one editor said "Per Necrothesp's list, what usually happens is there is a flood of !votes from a small group of editors who insist that certain awards make a person per se notable, notwithstanding whether there is any SIGCOV." Another said "The problem is that people use ANYBIO #1 to !vote to keep articles at AfD where other editors have conducted WP:BEFORE searches and found no significant coverage of the article subject in reliable sources." From my reading of the discussions there, most did not even realise the problem of editors citing ANYBIO as a keep rationale in itself, irrespective of the lack of in-depth coverage in secondary sources. We're going to have to go for an RfC eventually and completely deprecate ANYBIO unless this stops. AusLondonder (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If you read the discussion (and the others) you will, of course, notice that you are cherrypicking comments to support your own view. Many editors clearly disagree with you, hence the overwhelming number of people with high honours kept at AfD. Just because a handful of editors come along and start saying "we're right and you're wrong" does not make their argument any more valid than that of those who have consistently argued the opposite. But I have put my view more fully at the discussion you have started. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Those AfDs often involve very, very low participation, with the same collection of editors arguing ANYBIO supersedes sourcing requirements. You're arguing with the black and white words of your own favoured ANYBIO which says unambiguously that "conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" AusLondonder (talk) 10:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Those AfDs often involve very, very low participation, with the same collection of editors arguing ANYBIO supersedes sourcing requirements. But higher participation than in those other discussions, frankly. And not the same editors every time at all. I could equally say it's the same editors every time arguing against keeping them! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2024 (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.