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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Cochrane[edit]

Non-notable person, a vanity page written by the subject Jefffire 16:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Jefffire 16:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He might be very marginally notable, but there are no references provided with which to check that and debate it. The only conclusion is vanity. -Fsotrain09 16:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm not seeing the notability yet. The most promising source seems to be his books, but they are self-published and far out on the long tail, with Amazon sales ranks of 1,403,065 and 1,468,812 [1] [2]. --William Pietri 17:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isotope23's suggestion of userfication is fine by me as well. William Pietri 06:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete seems non-notable --RMHED 18:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is unfortunate that users making comments on this page have no knowledge of the subject matter, in this case astrology. David Cochrane is the developer of Kepler, the number-two general-purpose astrology software. He is certainly notable on that regard alone. His credentials include being the curriculum director of a top astrology school, former president of the largest international astrology organisation, and advisor to another significant astrological body. He is notable by these credentials alone. His main book, Astrology for the 21st Century, has been selected as one of top ten books in The best Essays about Astrology category by the largest astrology bookstore [3]. His other book, AstroLocality Magic, gets an honourable mention in its own category. He is notable by his books alone. He is also a sought-after speaker at various astrological conferences. He is one of the truly progressive thinkers among astrologers today, who is actively shaping a new astrological worldview. Furthermore, he is referenced on the Astrology page. The only marks against the page are that it was created by the person himself (which may be attributed to inexperience), and that it has no sources. These can be certainly remedied without resorting to deletion. All in all, David Cochrane is definitely notable, and only those having no familiarity with this field of study wouldn't recognise that this is so. Aquirata 12:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity. Notability not established in article (or here), only contributions to the article are from the subject. siafu 13:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It looks as though this autobiography was intended for the creator's Userpage rather than a topic page. Zeusnoos 14:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. "Would you add a comment that the censorers are preventing another "keep" from being posted onto the David Cochrane page?" - personal message from User:Andrew Homer.

I have agreed to post this here as in my view it doesn't contradict the user's temporary edit block ("You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks"). This message in my opinion cannot be taken as a personal attack, and in no way compromises any of the articles. To the best of my knowledge, posting such a message is not against WP policies and guidelines. Aquirata 16:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack, but the user is blocked, which means "no editing". I'm not an admin, but personally I don't think a proxy opinion from a blocked user is going to carry much weight.--Isotope23 18:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, I'm don't think it's appropriate to solicit AfD comments from people likely to agree with you: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. See WP:DP#Abuse of deletion process for more info. William Pietri 06:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are mistaken in your impression. David Cochrane is an astrologer. The people I have contacted have been active on the Astrology page and have shown knowledge of the subject matter. Do we not want knowledgeable users to contribute to this discussion? Or would you rather have uninformed people vote in a democratic manner? Aquirata 10:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am energetically opposed to voting at all on Wikipedia, and I'm not specifically seeking uninformed people. Instead, I believe that WP:V and WP:RS should allow any serious, thoughtful editor to evaluate the quality of an article. The AfD process allows us to get a relatively unbiased sample of people together for evaluation and discussion. If solicitation of participation is to be done at all (which personally I doubt) one has to scrupulously avoid anything that might pack the discussion. Astrology is a contentious topic, and I think soliciting participation only from one side of the debate is bound to introduce bias here. William Pietri 14:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can sympathise with your view in principle. To clarify where I am coming from, however let me use the timely example of the planetary status of Pluto and UB₃₁₃. You have to choose between the following two scenarios: (1) a group of astronomers will make an informed decision after deliberation, or (2) a larger group of laypeople, representing a cross-section of humanity (which may or may not include astronomers), will vote on the matter. Which way would you go? Aquirata 17:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the notion that you should let the people who focus on a thing make the decisions. Here we write an encyclopedia, so the people who decide what's in and out should be the editors. I believe that's how AfD already works. Were we building an encyclopedia of astrology, then packing the discussion with astrologers would be appropriate. But since we're writing a general-audience encyclopedia, it isn't. Better to focus your efforts on providing reliable sources with verifiable information that demonstrate that the subject meets WP:BIO. William Pietri 18:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, subject does not meet WP:BIO from anything I can see. Also a violation of WP:AUTO. Offer him a userfy though if he will accept it.--Isotope23 18:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To elaborate on William Pietri. Aquirata, Wikipedia does not restrict the editing of articles to experts on the article topic. This is because WP is open for anyone to edit. It doesn't matter if the article covers a topic in Drama or Biochemistry, the spirit of a wiki is to allow anyone to edit. Now, if someone editing the Botany article claims to be a botanist, the community would probably take that statement at face value. They might give that editor a certain deference and respect, if his or her edits were helpful, NPOV, and supported by several third-party sources. But the article remains open for anyone to edit. This is how Wikipedia works, and there is little evidence that an exception to this whole process, this entire ethos, should be made for one subject. -Fsotrain09 18:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Fsotrain09 and William Pietri. I see this as an entirely different topic, which would have merits for a more detailed discussion at another time. The objection was raised not to an attempt to exclude laypeople from this page (which is not the case) but to notifying editors knowledgeable about the subject matter. My point is that a better decision can be made with those people involved. The laypeople nevertheless can provide valuable input with respect to WP standards, guidelines and policies, but those alone will not get you the best result. "If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them", according to WP:IAR. The objective is to improve and maintain, not simply to observe rules. Aquirata 10:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think trying to increase the amount of information in the discussion is always a good thing, but I believe that you unintentionally did it in a way that could have biased the discussion. That can cause biased articles, unintentional NPOV violations, and partisan behavior when others react. None of that is good for Wikipedia's quality. If you really must pull more people into an AfD (which I'd recommend against), it's better to get a group that's informed and neutral or one that is informed and balanced than to pick only a group of people who share your POV on a topic, no matter how informed they are. Thanks, William Pietri 19:04, 20 July 2006 (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.