Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Paterson

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2016 June 24.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 merge to Age UK. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Paterson

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

I am not convinced of the notability of the person or of the position of "Internet Champion" DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as well as the three reliable sources present in the article, there is coverage in Age UK (different article), Wired, CWU, Channel 4, Slough Observer. "Internet Champion" is a term coined by Age UK, a notable UK based charity derived from Help the Aged that has run in Britain for decades and widely known in schools. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question to be asked is: Would the man-in-the-street, upon reading about this "Internet champion", be interested to find out more about him? If the answer is Yes then the article should be retained. The question of the "notability" of a person is highly subjective. If no consensus is reached as to whether Keith Paterson's being crowned "Internet Champion" by a well-established and highly-reputable institution such as Age UK be deleted, I suggest that the article be preserved. Peminatweb (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I personally feel inspired when I hear about older people that achieve even when what they achieve is an basic looking text based website. I don't think it is a relevant question if people would want to know more (I was pleased juat to hear of an older guy that was getting on with stuff) ... but yes I did. I read that he was deaf and went straight to a search on "Keith Paterson deaf". Anyway, that's the sentimental vote. The page only got 67 views last month. Gregkaye (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just because it's inspirational, doesn't mean it's notable. Lacks notoriety. My father was inspirational too. WP:BIO. sig1068 — Preceding undated comment added 00:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think it does satisfy WP's guidelines on Notability which states, inter alia: the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" – that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being "famous" or "popular" – although not irrelevant – is secondary. Unquote. Peminatweb (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. 2 of the keep !votes amount to ILIKEIT, and do not constitute a policy-based assertion of notability. The sources cited in the other keep are merely promotional or local coverage of the event, and not indicative of notability. Please note that the "wired-gov-uk" source is not Wired UK but a press release site. The deletes are a bit short hand in their comments, but do point out the essential problem here - lack of independent reliable sources to support the subject's notability. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally agree that Wired-Gov can be considered a press release site in the same manner as Crunchbase and PRWeb. Bear in mind that practically anyone anywhere can go to a commercial PR service and say just about whatever they want, but a public sector body has to have some form of accountability, and has no need for self promotion because I would assume it would not be in their interests to do so. I can't see any mention of the site on the Reliable Sources noticeboard, which I would have assumed to be the case. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I think that the award itself probably has enough coverage to be notable, and material on Paterson as a recipient of said award could be merged into such a hypothetical article. If I have time later today I will create such a stub. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 15:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of enough consensus for "Keep" (the other Keeps are indeed rather WP:ILIKEITish without producing concrete sources that would help the cause), I'm happy to go for second choice with a merge / redirect to Age UK per WP:BIO1E. The topic of "Internet Champions" (hey, I didn't choose the name!) is I feel of encyclopaedic importance, even if the individual award recipients is tenuous. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I fail to see the requisite coverage needed to establish notability. In terms of usability of "wired-gov-uk" noted above, it's a press release. That it is from government doesn't somehow make it not a press release. -- Whpq (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: as per User:Ritchie333, to Age UK as described in WP:BIO1E. XiuBouLin (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2014 (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.