- 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Steven Troughton-Smith
[edit]- Steven Troughton-Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The notability of the subject is not clear. Article is of poor quality, with few citations and multiple page issues. Nullpixel (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As with the nominator and other contributors, I have spent a little time reviewing the text and the references linked in the article (and other mentions of the subject elsewhere), and do not see that WP:NBIO is met. Does the subject's name appear in some tech-press articles? Yes. Is it non-trivial coverage? No - probably not. Take for example, this Wired UK article from 2011 which is used to support some of the text. It is substantively about an app and its creator - who isn't the subject here. The subject here is mentioned - as the app's developer (coder). This is just one example, but it is one of several that do not substantively contribute to GNG and NBIO. While the subject is, undoubtedly, the primary topic in some other coverage (like this Irish Times piece), I am disquieted by the level of "extrapolation" in the article text that was made of this coverage. (Coverage in two tech-press articles does not support a claim of being a "poster child". Nor does one link to an awards page support a claim of winning "many accolades and awards"). In honesty, it is this level of inappropriate COI, PROMO and AUTOBIO that has pushed me from 'maybe there is a little coverage....' to 'delete for GNG, COI and NOTCV reasons'. In short: Delete. Guliolopez (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per nom. He has written some iPhone apps which are not in themselves notable; they would never qualify for a WP article - E.g. he would not pass as a tech-BLP. Because he writes apps, he gets early editions of new iPhones and then reviews them for the Irish media (doesn't appear for wider tech products), and per Guliolopez, the good RS he throws up are not specifically about him per se, but his name being mentioned in the course of doing an upcoming iPhone review for Irish media. Hardly appears outside Ireland. Britishfinance (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The article is dated and poor, but as "Steve Troughton-Smith", he's become well-known in the tech world for spelunking trough Apple beta code and finding things in there that form the basis of major press reports. However, that's dependent on somebody doing the work to actually add all that… Mattyjohn (talk) 00:00, 21 February 2019 (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.