Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter William Wade

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MBisanz (talk | contribs) at 02:58, 19 January 2009 (Closing debate, result was delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. MBisanz talk 02:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter William Wade

Peter William Wade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Despite the detailed article, I do not see anything that meets wp:bio. References (the ones that load to an actual site) do not assert notability either. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • While the article may be notable, at a stretch, it's poorly written. It's difficult to tell wether it is about Peter William Wade or his brother, or both! Probably better tagged for WP:CLEANUP. I'd help clean up this article but I have no interest in it whatsoever. Nick carson (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No, the same person created an article about Benjamin James Wade at the same time. I don't know what the occasion is, but neither one of them is having a birthday this month. In doing a Google news search, I can't see that either of them stands out, but since we're talking about only this person, here's the results for 2007 and 2008. [1]. If someone can show some notability please let me know. Mandsford (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since I actually took on the task of reading both Wade articles, I should share that it certainly seems like Benjamin is more notable.. he's on Survivor, conducts an Orchestra, College Coach.. not sure what that leads to, but I hope that explains why this is the only one I sent over. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 03:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sheesh. I thought Stephanie Sailor was the acme of vanity, but this takes the cake and eats it too. Seriously, descended of Pocahontas? The most traveled person in the US? And in between all these random and inflated facts, not a bit of substance. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oh my gosh, this article should only be kept as an archive, to be shown as an example of how non-notable and vain a biography can get. --MrShamrock (talk) 06:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity has no bounds. Racepacket (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The article is packed with a lot of fluff, which does itself no favors, but it's not as bad as previous discussion would indicate. The subject's film work has won awards from local film festivals which probably don't quite meet notability standards (one imdb entry); he has an independently published mathematical theorem which isn't influential enough to meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics); the public access TV show and teaching career are non-notable. Does not-quite-notable work in multiple fields add up to notability overall? Probably not. Baileypalblue (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you murder your parents (Sarah Marie Johnson), we'll keep you on Wikipedia. If you win a handful of awards (but no Oscars or Golden Globes) as a filmmaker (John Cassavetes), we'll keep you on Wikipedia. But if you are a cast member on Survivor and could bring millions of people to Wikipedia's site (a site that has gained quite a reputation among college professors for its unreliability), LET'S DELETE THEM because they're vain!!! If you are an award-winning filmmaker who revolutionizes the mathematics program at two schools and make thousands of students' lives better, LET'S DELETE THEM because they're vain!!! I wonder if MrShamrock, Drmies, Mandsford and Racepacket would be so gracious as to list the top 5 accomplishments in their life thus far. Show me notability. Mandsford was unable to find Ben Wade's name in a Google search despite numerous links to Survivor 18. I'm not impressed at your surfing skills. The Wade brothers are not nearly as notable as many, believe me! But it seems they have collectively accomplished enough to merit a spot on Wikipedia. Incidentally, vanity is not an issue when these articles are being written ABOUT the Wade Brothers, not BY them. Superdupereditor (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 1) The five editors didn't write wikipedia articles about ourselves nor solicit someone to do so. 2) Sources do not have to be on the internet. 3) I am troubled by Superdupereditor's use of "we." 4) The notability of Peter must be established independently of Ben. 5) I hope that Superdupereditor is not being paid to do this stuff. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly, you feel strongly about this, and that's fine. Here's a suggestion. Give us a link to whichever news article which, in your opinion, best illustrates the accomplishments of Peter William Wade. Frankly, the article has so much verbage about Pocahontas and trips to Alaska that it's difficult to figure out Mr. Wade's important accomplishments. Mandsford (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I appreciate your reasonable reply Mandsford and you make a good point. I suppose the biggest problem is that in researching the Wade brothers, and in talking with them, there are numerous awards and certificates and newspaper articles bestowed upon these two but not much of it has been encapsulated on the Internet. Microfiche yes, the web no. This site provides me with an opportunity to celebrate their personal accomplishments not yet fully documented on the Internet. It's a difficult task and I'm not sure where to go with it. Superdupereditor (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per CSD G11. A very similar article about both brothers was just deleted not long ago with much of the same content. It's pure promotion and written by someone associated with the subject. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 06:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let's not mislead the public Gmatsuda. There was indeed one single article written about the Wade brothers a week ago just before the release of the Survivor 18 cast list. At that time, we were under contract with CBS not to release that information and thus the one key fact missing was Ben Wade's association with Survivor. The article was deleted because the Wade brothers were not deemed worthy of notability. Once the Survivor cast was released on Tuesday, it now made Ben Wade notable (it takes a reality show to make him Wikipedia-worthy since all of his other accomplishments are worthless to this website). With this newfound notability, separate articles of the Wade brothers were posted on Wikipedia (you'll notice that most cast members have Wikipedia articles). I'm most confused by your indication that there is some sort of promotion in these articles. There are numerous filmmakers, mathematicians, conductors, coaches and musicians on Wikipedia. Not for advertising purposes but for informational purposes. The Wade brothers are not conductors or coaches or musicians-for-hire. There is nothing to advertise. -- Superdupereditor (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has anyone considered the fact that Chris Crocker and William Hung have Wikipedia articles? As we all know, they have truly contributed to society. Essentially, absolutely anyone who has experienced their "15 minutes of fame" and is soon forgotten is Wikipedia-worthy but someone who accomplishes great things throughout their life is not (unless they've been featured on national television). -- Superdupereditor (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Under contract?" OK. That is a strong indication that this article is promotional and that it clearly violates Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. While having a conflict of interest doesn't mean the article should be deleted, in and of itself, it does raise serious questions about its credibility and reliability. An indepedent third party should have written it. Doesn't matter who else has an article. That's irrelevant. If merely being on Survivor makes one notable (which I'm not sure I agree with), I'll go with the consensus on that. Notability is subjective, in reality. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I have made a proposed edit of the article (the author can change it back to the old version simply by clicking on history). P.W. Wade was published in the College Mathematics Journal as co-author of a recursion theorem concerning Pythagorean triples, which might be sufficiently notable. He's also had some achievements as an indie filmmaker, although I don't know that those would be notable enough. I've removed anything that doesn't refer to those two accomplishments, and invite people to judge his case on the recent edit. Mandsford (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Mandsford has done an excellent job at cleaning up this article. If Superdupereditor didn't realize it was a vanity page before, maybe s/he will see the difference now--and the power of reference (i.e., proof that something was notable enough to be written about by someone in a notable medium). Crocker and Hung are irrelevant here--it's not good deeds that will get in WP, it's notability (and I'm with Gmatsuda on the ethics of that, incidentall). I continue to question the overall notability, though. I can't find a single meaningful reference to the Pete Wade Show, except for TV channels' program listings. Second and third place in a local film project is not as good as winning a non-local film project. In the end, what's left is the theorem--and while the original article claimed this was as big as the pyramids, I'm not so convinced, and I think that it would deserve a one-sentence article at best, since that's really the only published reference: the original article in the Journal of College Math and the follow-up article, in the same journal, from a few years later. The Editor can continue to question my significance in life, but that won't affect my judgment. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By "under contract", Mr. Matsuda, I simply meant that I was one of the few people who knew that Ben Wade would appear on Survivor 18 months in advance. CBS asked that I sign a contract that prevented me from leaking this information. I am not a relative or friend of the Wade brothers and I have only met them twice. I see no conflict of interest. I did extensive interviews on both occasions and they were able to back up every bit of their biographical information. The problem is that little of it appears on the Internet and I was trying to accomplish just that. I suppose my ultimate aim was to write an article on Wikipedia that you won't find anywhere else, a one-of-a-kind rather a regurgitation of the same info you'll find everywhere else (Survivor sites, newspapers, magazines, journals). What I didn't understand, being relatively new to Wiki, is that you can't write an exclusive article based on independent research, facts that people would absolutely love to read about. One must simply offer a collective summary of facts that can be backed up by other Internet sources. Not very creative, but I get it now. I'm still not sure I understand what prevents me from going to each of your articles and deleting all of them for whatever reasons I deem applicable. I'm also not sure why Dr. Wade's contribution to the development of the MRI or their grandfather's patent of the first pop top can is not relevant, since all of you have encountered at least one if not both of those inventions in your lifetime. As far as Mandsford's edit, it may not tell the fascinating story of the Wade family but if that's all I can get, I'll accept it. I greatly appreciate Mandsford taking the time to clean it up rather than the others who have simply chosen to hurl insults. I imagine they have accomplished very little in life and feel bitter. Thank you Mandsford for your efforts. As for Drmies, the mathematical breakthrough was certainly not the biggest discovery of the century, I'll agree. But I think if you understood mathematics, or asked any math professor, you would appreciate the significance of finding a recursion that churns out every possible Pythagorean Triple, something even Pythagoras couldn't do. I don't understand a thing about NASCAR so I wouldn't dare go around debating it. Drmies, I was hoping you would post a picture of yourself so we could all decide whether or not you are a dweeb as you claim the Wade brothers are. -- Superdupereditor (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mr. Editor, first of all, I didn't use that word (please read carefully); secondly, it seemed to me that the picture and the articles presented some sort of ideal image of two renaissance men. My brother and I, I assure you, are hardly as goodlooking or glamorous as the Wade brothers are (and we also don't know a thing about NASCAR--where does that come from?). And sure, I've encountered pop cans. The inventor of that is probably notable; how does that rub off on the grandson? The basic fact is this: notability requires documentation. I find it hard to believe that such a notable person would not have made a dent on the internet. For instance, The Knoxville News Sentinel has an online archive. No results for "Peter William Wade," for Peter William Wade only real estate transactions, nothing for "Peter Wade," nothing for "Pete Wade." That does not mean that "the internet" left him out; it means that his local paper, in the place where he's from and where he excelled in so many things (according to an earlier version of your article) never ran an article mentioning him. (I lived in Knoxville, I worked at UT, I know where to look.) Results when searching the Tennessean, the Nashville paper, are the same. WP:N is the name of the game. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Superduper - Sources on Wikipedia don't have to exist on the internet. They can be books, academic journals, old newspaper articles, etc. Please see wp:reliable sources. If you have new references to add, I would recommend this link - Referencing for beginners --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: OK...if speedy delete is not appropriate, I'll change my vote to Strong Delete. Despite this editor's denial of conflict of interest and that the article is nothing more than pure promotion, s/he contradicts him/herself by writing (see above), "...This site provides me with an opportunity to celebrate their personal accomplishments." Sure sounds like pure promotion to me. Wikipedia is not about paying tribute to anyone or anything. Another thing, an article about the subject's brother doesn't belong on Wikipedia, either. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Deletion of this article would deprive non-admins of the joys of reading earlier versions such as this one. I have very mixed feelings about this inimitable article. -- Hoary (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Peter_William_Wade&oldid=265001873"