Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Pipes

:{{la|Alan Pipes}} ([{{fullurl:Alan Pipes|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Pipes}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

non notable writer, mentioned once in Daily Telegraph for collecting unusual cycle lanes, web master of a channel 4 tv programme's website and managing editor of a CAD magazine in the last 70's... none of which really make him notable. No doubt a talented man, but not encyclopaediatic. Festen la vida (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Whoah there, hoss! He's FRSA - a Fellow of The Royal Society of Arts and IMHO that confers notability. Also, he's notable as per WP:PROFESSOR for his textbooks. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

:*Comment. The RSA admits anyone as a fellow who can find someone to sponsor them and can stump up £145 a year.[http://www.thersa.org/fellowship/become-a-fellow] Fellowship is by no exclusive, and there are currently about 27,000 fellows. I have no opinion yet about the subject's other claims to notability but being an FRSA shouldn't provide an automatic pass. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
• Response. Hmmm...OK, I had thought that FRSA and FRS were equivalent for the purposes of verification under WP:PROF, but I would be prepared to concede that FRSA, as per Phil Bridger does not automatically confer notability. Eddie.willers (talk) 22:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 12:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The sources demonstrate his notabilty so the topic is encyclopaediatic. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:: You might have to elaborate further on this. How do the sources demonstrate his notability? In theory you could write "the sources demonstrate his notability" on any sourced article for deletion. I'm also not sure he passes WP:PROFESSOR - he's certainly published some works, but I'm not sure if they count as "significant impact". I'm tempted to go for Delete Greco Roman Empire (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

::: As noted by the nominator, there is an article about this person in the Daily Telegraph which is a major newspaper. There are numerous other references to this person and his work out there. This is the essence of notability and so the nomination seems to be an oxymoron. It is a fundamental policy that we tolerate imperfect articles, allowing them to be improved. Our deletion process therefore indicates that, in cases of uncertainty, we do not delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

:::: Are you suggesting that an article in the Daily Telegraph is enough to make someone notable? The article in question refers to essentially a piece of trivia about the individual. He is surely not notable as a "collector of short, unusual and misplaced cycle lanes"? Greco Roman Empire (talk) 17:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::* The Daily Telegraph article is a substantial one and describes him as having a cult following. His website has been covered in numerous other newspapers and so this alone is certainly enough to justify inclusion here. This comes on top of his numerous other accomplishments and so his encyclopaediaticity is clear. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

: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.