Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noel Gray

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 but clean up article, with cleanup needed by any contributors with medical/cardiological knowledge (as QRS suggested). Alabamaboy 00:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Gray

Article evidently written by subjects son. Violates WP:NPOV, WP:Autobiography. 2) WP not a family history site WP:NOT. 3)Multiple assertions not supported by verifiable references. 4) Author never signs posts. 5) Postnominals GIRE. There is no G ranking of membership of the Institute of Radio Engineers. 6) Contains nonsense in section "World War 11"; eg: relative to "suck up marks" and "Radar" "that he used during Coral Sea Battle". A non-commissioned rank would not have authority to perform action claimed. An exaggeration at least. See also http://www.st.net.au/~dunn/ausarmy/3ac2ard.htm and acknowledgement at bottom. 7) In "vindication" reference to US patent 6,144,879. A search of this patent shows it to be a nonsense patent as evident to anyone trained in cardiology. 8) On the talk page it had been suggested the author should rewrite the article. No attempt made. 9) Talk page concludes with an unsigned illiterate & offensive statement. QRS 00:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak Delete, I concur with most of the noms statements, but this gentleman seemed to have lived a pretty interesting life. There is probably a good reason to have an article about him, too bad this one isn't it. Burzmali 01:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founding the company that invented the pacemaker sounds notable to me (assuming it's correct, of course). The article just needs a rewrite. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 01:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC) Delete and re-create Per deductions by OfficeGirl and Faithlesswonderboy. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 06:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Noel Gray may indeed warrant an article due to his involvement with Telectronics. Whether it will be cleaned up to meet standards is doubtful under current circumstances but that might be tried before deletion. Capitalistroadster 02:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 02:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A poor aritcle that will stay poor. Oh well... MarkBul 03:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clean up, and handle the incivility through proper channels. This article has major problems, but although sources that actually mention Noel Gray are slim, he appears to have played a notable role in the development of the pacemaker. Beyond that he is merely a normally accomplished businessman with a minor military career, and the article does its subject a disservice by pretending otherwise. --Dhartung | Talk 03:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG DELETE ASAP On the surface this appears to be a deliriously ranting POV memorial tribute article to Noel Gray, but in fact what I see is WP:COATRACK. This is actually a thinly disguised attack article against Paul Trainor in violation of WP:ATTACK. Trainor's alleged underhanded business machinations deprived the article's main contributor (Noel Gray's son, ostensibly) of what should have been a vast inheritance of riches. Note the "Vindication" section. WP:ATTACK trumps any notability that Noel Gray might have. Let's delete this article now, without prejudice to recreation at a later date if another Wikipedia editor becomes ready to sanely and appropriately report on the facts and notability from a neutral point of view with reliable sources.OfficeGirl 04:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Paul Trainor" see Nucleus Limited and 'discussion'.QRS 06:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep and format properly Any other issues can be settled though editing, and proper citation. Your son can't write your autobiography, no matter how sharp his pencil is, at that point it is a biography, and just needs to be sourced properly. The tone is too enthusiastic, and it relies on too many primary documents, but that can be handled by the normal editing process. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though the article does need quite a bit of work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.202.83 (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and re-create per this policy. Gray appears to have borderline notability for his involvement with the pacemaker. As OfficeGirl pointed out, this article has POV problems, and aside from that is pretty poorly written. The best approach would be to delete the current page and create a stub in its place. faithless (^speak) 06:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Twenty Years 08:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate. I agree with Faithless and Officegirl. Seraphim ^Whipp 08:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above per the coatracking here. Eusebeus 19:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recreate - Per Faithlesswonderboy. --Thε Rαnδom Eδιτor (tαlk) 20:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At least one of the above delete comments seems to show animus against the subject of this article, and personally I disregard such comments, not decide on the basis of them. Apparent a neutral editor is needed. DGG (talk) 04:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a content-related issue which should be solved through neutral editing, but the subject does appear notable. Yamaguchi先生 23:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My personal view is that the article should be kept after a conscientious clean-up. As I initiated the Afd I probably should not be nudging in again, but noting that other Wikipedians have done some clean-up of the article for which they should be commended, may I suggest that a contributor or administrator with medical/cardiological knowledge view the link which refers to the "Patent". The patent is a nonsense patent; citing it is damaging to the article's subject and to Wikipedia, hence the ref. should be deleted.QRS 04:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by QRS (talk • contribs)

I still have concerns about the "attack page" issue WP:ATP. Seems like it would be a good thing to re-create the article immediately after deletion, to wipe the attack page history off the record.OfficeGirl 11:24, 17 September 2007

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.