This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2013 August 27.
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 delete. WP:USERFY available on request. Bbb23 (talk) 15:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Matthew Wise[edit]

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

No indication of notability on google, gnews, gbooks, etc [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 22:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep because there is something about this that asserts notability. However I concede that I have been fooled to a great extent by the incoherent clutter into believing that at least one of the references given must satisfy WP:RS. I checked each of them and failed to find that to be the case, hence my week keep is based more upon emotion than on fact and policy. I suspect it needs WP:TNT whatever the outcome of this discussion. It's certain that the main contributing editor needs careful mentoring and advice, but they seem unresponsive. Fiddle Faddle 23:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have, at last, found a WP:RS reference here and added it to the article. The article remains a ghastly mess, but does, now, pas WP:GNG for sure. Fiddle Faddle 20:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, incomprehensible mess, probably composed by the subject of the article. This is not the place for Damon Matthew Wise to publish his resume. --Laser brain (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe not all of it but at least most of it. Much is unreferenced. Facebook is not an appropriate reference. Neither is another Wikipedia article or their talk pages. We need independent sources and it needs to be written in a more neutral tone. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally we are not here to host peoples CV's. Many of the refs listed do not even mention the person this article is supposedly about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per laser brain. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Request The main contributing editor is a self identified Asperger Syndrome diagnosed person. I have spent some time finding a suitable mentor and other people who will work with him/her to turn the article into a form where it is possible to save it. On that basis I am going to ask for a WP:IAR solution, something unusual. That is that this AfD be closed for now with a special closure, perhaps referencing WP:AUTISM as a justification. The outcome should be that the article be moved to a WP:AFC status in order that the editor and mentor(s) can work on it unhindered by deletion discussions, and that there is no prejudice to re-creation once it has been through the AFC process.

I believe that this would fulfil the quite reasonable arguments that the article in its present state be deleted, and take the pressure off what seems to be a high functioning autistic editor to deliver to a time deadline. I believe that this solution should be implemented without delay, and explained in detail to User:AspieNo1 perhaps directly, perhaps through the mentoring team. I see no harm in temporary protection for this article to prevent re-creation until the AFC process has completed satisfactorily, but I would not class it as a deletion per se as an AfD outcome, rather as a "Special closure to allow the article to be worked on in a protected environment". Fiddle Faddle 19:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck out request. No longer required. Fiddle Faddle 13:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That protective environment will be called a Sandbox and we should encourage him/her to do so. I must add, that the person about he/she writes about is quite notable, as the size of the article implements.

@Doc James: The Facebook reference I have moved to the external link. I also cited naked references, and pretty much clean up the article to bring it to some readability standards.--Mishae (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Size of an article does not represent notability. I could write an article like this for any person on the planet. I guess the question is should each of us have an article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see more WP:RS citations have been added. These are sufficient to verify notability and the article now passes WP:GNG in spades. It is by no means a good article, not even wholly intelligible yet, but AfD is not a cleanup process. Fiddle Faddle 23:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference I am able to see that could be classified as independent and specific enough to help pass WP:GNG is the RTE link. Because the other links (that I can see) used from independent sources do not appear to mention Mr. Wise at all, I am somewhat skeptical of the paywalled articles used here. If the first reference, from the Irish Times, does in fact mention Mr. Wise by name, then I would agree that it passes GNG, but at the same time much of the article as it exists right now seems WP:UNDUE. I agree this is not the place to sort that issue out, but after checking the references I am still hesitant to say that it does pass GNG. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 23:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See this version now added to the article, and a reprint in an Autism specialist item. GNG is not not eally an argument any more. What we need now is article quality, but that is not for AfD. Fiddle Faddle 00:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All the unreffed / poorly reffed content I deleted was returned moments after I deleted it [1]
Have people bothered to look at the refs provided? Take a look at this one [2] does not mention the subject of the article. How about this one [3]? Also does not mention the subject of the article. No forums are not reliable sources [4]. This ref does not mention the user in question either [5]. This is not published anywhere notable and is not a reliable source [6]. This looks like self promotion and someone wanting Wikipedia to host their CV. User should take it to their sandbox. Having a disorder is not justification for us keeping an article they have worked on. Just because someone has received a couple of comments in a newpaper does not automatically make them notable. We need "significant coverage" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The lead states "he had participated in over 1200 newsprint and radio programs" The ref is [7] and does not support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This looks like it is being written by the person in question. Who else would now these sorts of details [8]? And not provide references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For now at least. The article is such a mess, I tried to read the citations and copy edit but I can't figure out what the hell is going on. Who is this guy and WHY is he notable? I would like to see multiple RS covering his notability. Maybe I am missing it, but no for now. --Malerooster (talk) 03:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This ref was used to show he has run for local office.[9] He received less than 1% in each effort. This would not reach notability for a politician. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While reminding us all that AfD is not a cleanup operation, I agree that the article remains a mess. Malerooster's point (broadly) that the mess conceals notability is well made. We are dealing with a most unusual editor here. Please read WP:AUTISM. Some of the issues the editor appears to have include a delay in processing language before the language is understood. With care we can handle that. tame the article, and guide their hand. Pre-empting the argument that "WIkipedia is not a care programme", I agree. Even so the AfD process is not urgent, it has an elapsed time. I'm 80% confident that the mentoring that has been put in place will bear fruit in time, because the mentor has a deep understanding of Autism and Asperger Syndrome. If time here runs out, then userfying the article makes the most sense, and doing so without prejudice to its later re-creation. Fiddle Faddle 08:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Userfy - This article has been cleaned up significantly since its creation. Also, the subject appears also notable for his fandom links as well as his activist efforts. --Auric talk 11:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment unless the article receives edits that destroy its current state, a state that is sufficiently clear, has as much extraneous clutter as possible removed, and is as NPOV as many editors working towards the goal of keeping the article can make t, I think there is no need to userfy now. It is still not a glorious article, but it is an acceptable article. It passes our minimum standards with ease at present. Fiddle Faddle 13:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have recommended that the original creator userfy the article and I will help him to work on the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If necessary sandbox it while it is undergoing repair, but do not just delete. I believe that course of action would reflect poorly on WP. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sending to their sandbox would be okay by me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just because the persons work is on Autism and Aspies doesn't make it eligible to use WP for advertisement. A m i t 웃 15:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of the things one can criticise the article for, advertising is not one I can see. If its there it is an element that can be removed. Where do you see it? Fiddle Faddle 15:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability claim seems to rest on having been the subject of a Human interest story, but the media turns out large numbers of these types of stories every day, and Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. - MrOllie (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Possibly at the weak end of keep, but he is of some notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2013 (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.