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. Courcelles 13:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pie Corbett

[edit]

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

Notability is questionable, article is poorly sourced. The quality of the article is very poor and nobody seems to want to fix it. It needs deleting or rewriting almost from scratch, and it doesn't look like anyone is going to rewrite it as nobody has fixed the Orphan or Citation problems, from February ('09!) and July '10 respectively Minsc2634 (talk) 13:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)— Minsc2634 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Being poorly written is not a reason for deletion and it is quite clear that the notability of the subject is not questionable in the slightest. I am sourcing the article right now. Silver seren^C 21:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A total of 15 cites found on GS. Does not look good. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

What do you mean by that? Silver seren^C 16:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article has a number of sources, but they are not coverage of the subject per WP:RS, simply offhand mentions of his work, among other persons, and not in a way that suggests a high degree of notability or importance in his field. Google Scholar records 159 hits, a solid eighty to ninety percent of which are childrens' books written by the subject; the citations that do exist are informal, en passant and not constituting dedicated coverage. By these standards I'd have to assert that the subject fails WP:AUTH, WP:ACADEMIC and by extension WP:GNG. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 19:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 159 GS hits, 15 cites. Indicates that the subject has published much but has been noticed little. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. How many academic citations would you expect to find to works of children's fiction and primary school text books and teachers' guides? This is not the metric that we should be using to judge notability of this subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur with above. In this case, it seems we should really be relying on solid secondary sources (since citations and worldcat holdings may not be as directly relevant in children's lit), which do not seem to be there. Short quotes in a few newspapers and vague assertions like "has had a great deal of experience as a teacher..." are not enough. Glad to change my position if real WP:RS shows up. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: looking at the results of a search on google for

"Pie Corbett" site:.gov.uk

seems to me to indicate a sufficient degree of notability in UK education circles. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I have added a number of new references to the article and i'm still working on more. Please re-evaluate the article with these new references in mind. Silver seren^C 22:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously a notable poet, teacher and pedagogue. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was linked to this article from an external academic article on some issues of special needs teaching, as a convenient background bio. What do I find - WP is (of course) trying to delete it as "non-notable". What an utter farce this place is 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 09:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do not think it fair to say that Wikipedia is trying to delete it. An editor has questioned it's notability/suitability and then suggested it might be not be suitable and should be deleted and then there is a debate and the community (an administrator) decides. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

What seems remarkable in this case is that the nominator has not made any other edits. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, I didn't notice that making this AfD was their only edit. That's...suspicious, to say the least. Silver seren^C 15:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that unusual, nor is it essentially suspicious. AIUI, anon IPs can't create new pages, thus can't submit for AfD. It's thus an incentive for established, but anon, editors to take the plunge and register. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why would they register to only submit this article for deletion? Are they related to the subject? Do they just dislike the subject personally? It's hard for me to AGF and think that they just believe the subject is non-notable, because they would have other contributions to WP if they believed as such. That's what I think, anyways. Silver seren^C 16:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this is suspicious. From the perspective of a genuine new editor or a casual reader, AfD is certainly one of the more esoteric aspects of WP. I rather doubt this is the way that most legit accounts start out. Still think this person is not notable though. Thanks, Agricola44 (talk) 18:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I only created an account to nominate this article for deletion. I've edited a fair few wiki pages anonymously before, and after I'd cleaned up the discussion page I decided to nominate the page for deletion, which requires an account. If I'm wrong at least I'm learning more about Wikipedia for the future, and it has resulted in the page improving a lot more than I could have done (if it's kept). Minsc2634, 15 September 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 12:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep Noteable educationalist consulted by the UK government. Reasonable case for deletion at time of nom, but article has since been massively improved by editor Silverseren. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't yet checked out the sources in the article or looked for any more, but I would point out that WP:PROF is not the only notability criterion, so arguments based on a lack of citations found by Google Scholar are inconclusive. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially considering that Corbett is really not an academic, right? Silver seren^C 21:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As noted above, he is not really an academic in the traditional sense, and is known more as a children's book author and an elementary education expert. So WP:PROF is not the most relevant guideline here. I think there is a good case for passing WP:BIO based on the current improved state of the article. Nsk92 (talk) 12:53, 15 September 2010 (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.