Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Muirhead (Eidos)

: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 Muirhead and Nolan, keep Power. Mangojuicetalk 18:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

=[[Bruce Muirhead (Eidos)]]=

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

Not-notable; no reliable sources. D.M.N. (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:

:{{la|Mark Nolan}}

:{{la|Colin Power}}

D.M.N. (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

: delete agree with all three noms and strongly suggest the Eidos page be rewritten to read less like it was written by the company. plan 8 (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree that Mark Nolan and Colin Power whould be deleted as they fail WP:BIO as non notable. Bruce Muirhead I would class as a weak delete. He seems to have done much more than the others, but still fails WP:PROF. Jenafalt (talk) 19:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Powell notable on the basis of the honorary degree as part of the distinguished career "In 1978 he was appointed as Professor of Education at Flinders University of South Australia, Professor Emeritus of that University, Hon. D.Litt, University of Sydney, 2002"

::Possibly keep the others The other two I have some doubts about, because of the lack of solid evidence in the articles. This is basically questioning of the people associated with the Eidos Institute; it would seem likely that there is material to be found, but it needs to be--in this case, by someone other than me. I would like to know what sources the nominator has tried and failed to find information with. Presumably he has looked, for I assume he wants to keep the articles if possible, per Deletion Policy. DGG (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
  • keep prof. muirhead is notable and has a distinguished career serving queensland and greater australia. we need to be careful about systemic bias here. his notability is non-american, but still verifiable based on his current page, which could use improvement. if there are 'no reliable sources, go find some' it takes but a few minutes to dig up material in google. --Buridan (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete all per Jenafant. To Buridan: it is for those who seek to have material included to provide sources, not for those who seek to have it removed to show there are none. Stifle (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

::actually it is up to the proposer to make every effort to improve the article before proposing deletion. in this case, it looks like they forgot that part. needing improvement is not a reason for afd. quick google search shows there is material. --Buridan (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

:- Nolan fails the notability guidelines for biographies, having no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, no notable awards or honours and no evidence of a widely recognised contribution to his field. Delete.

:- Muirhead also has no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, but has been unsucessfully nominated for Australian awards for university teaching. On balance this seems too little to justify an article - it can always be recreated if/when he finally wins. The Goodna Project cite in the article is a red herring - it doesn't mention Muirhead at all, and notability is not conferred from association with a notable project. As with Nolan, no sources and no apparent evidence of an enduring contribution to the historical record in his chosen field. On balance, delete.

:- Power is the exception, with reasonable coverage in external sources, some notable positions (eg. 12 years running UNESCO's education programs, one of the highest UN positions held by an Australian), 13 books and 250 published works on eucation. [http://www.usyd.edu.au/senate/Citations/Power.pdf This] provides a better summary of his achievements than our article does. I can't determine what the "Moscow medal" is (there was a "Defense of Moscow" medal in WWII but I doubt that Colin Power has one, and the Clarenced MacNamara Award is equally obscure. Still, on balance there's enough here to keep this one. Euryalus (talk) 05:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep and merge to Eidos Institute. --Reinoutr (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Nolan and Muirhead, Keep Power for Euryalus' extensive analysis. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:58, 2 September 2008 (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.