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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Adrian Farrel (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Article currently is a CV cited to primary sources (largely added by the subject himself). There's no evidence at all that any of his books have received significant secondary attention (the most recent three are self-published). Whether or not he'd been elected to a position in a minor UK political party, he'll need to have had significant coverage in reliable seondary sources to meet WP:GNG. In the absence of any compelling claims of notability, time for the article to go. Sionk ( talk) 12:08, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Baby miss fortune} 12:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Baby miss fortune} 12:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Baby miss fortune} 12:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Delete does not meet notability criteria for academics. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Neutral I created article because the guy has headed many IETF groups and written RFCs. Furthermore, according to Amazon he has authored multiple computer science books. However, for me his non-computer science books were never a criteria of his notability. I do not care if the article is deleted or kept. --- A. L. M. 17:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Keep 9 books written, 25 citations, The previous notice mentions "This article needs attention from an expert in Biography/Science and academia" so unless those proposing deletion are just that - I don't see how the deletion can be proposed. I see nothing to suggest those proposing the deletion have the necessary qualifications. Drowz0r ( talk) 00:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

So what expertise, Wikipedia policy or guidance are you using to support your 'keep'? Sionk ( talk) 07:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Given our expertise seem roughly the same, my keep and your proposed delete seem equally valid. So it is either worth something and we cancel one another out... or neither of us have the necessary expertise and our views are worth equally zero (looking at your profile my qualifications are likely the same as your own, without going into too much detail on your/my degrees etc). Drowz0r ( talk) 23:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I don't particularly agree with the justification provided for the nomination, but I'm not sure I can argue against what is likely to be the outcome. Personally, I think Wikipedia is too keen on just removing BLP articles because a high bar for notability is required. On the other hand, the subject of this nominations has works that are rightfully cited sources for other articles on Wikipedia, and I'd also suggest (but don't know), that the subject is sufficiently notable in his main area of activity. I certainly feel like the nominator should have at least consulted with the Science and Academia workgroup first. Does this project even know the article has been nominated for deletion? Have they actually even been informed the article was in need of attention? Also, Wikipedia's guidelines make little account for semi-academic engineering professions, especially in computing (with the exception of mentioning an IEEE fellowship as a sign of notability), as the specific criteria don't often apply to these disciplines, so that could use improvement. Either way, I think it's a bit disappointing the amount of busybodying this article has received by WP:POLUK.-- Topperfalkon ( talk) 12:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Topperfalkon ( talk) 14:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC) reply

• Keep I was able to find coverage in a reliable independent source. FloridaArmy ( talk) 15:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep. With top citation count on Google scholar over 1000 and a couple other publications over 100 he appears to pass WP:PROF#C1 (but only just, as it's a high-citation field). — David Eppstein ( talk) 01:29, 20 January 2018 (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.