Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tommy McHugh
=[[Tommy McHugh]]=
:{{la|Tommy McHugh}} – (
:({{Find sources|Tommy McHugh}})
WP:BLP1E. Notable only for his condition. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 00:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. czar · · 00:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
In the world of neuroscience. Progress in our understanding is often made
only when looking at damage to a specific brain region and we look at the
changes in behavior that was produced.
Human examples proof to be very rare to come by, All the more rarer
because they can talk and tell us more than say a lab rat.
What we know can know from this is a case study of the relation of
frontal lobe and temporal damage.
Granted, this article may need to be prettify but It is definitely a
significant cog in our understanding of the brain.
How many people do you find walking around with that particular kind of
brain injuries anyway?
Isn't Wikipedia build to consolidate knowledge? Suppose someone want to
research on the likely behaviour from a similar head concussion, where
else would you find that information?
Rules are subservient to Principles. And one of the principle in this
case is I believe, is to deepen our knowledge of the brain.
Haaaa (talk) 07:25, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Notability is established by the references that indicate widespread coverage. The article was poorly written but AFD isn't the place for cleanup. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC). PS regarding "Suppose someone want to research on the likely behaviour from a similar head concussion, where else would you find that information?" - I suspect that doctors might want to read the medical literature rather than Wikipedia, which is a user written encyclopedia. That said, if there are any medical papers on him, please let us know because we can reference them. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- There may be relatively widespread coverage but I would dispute that it's significant coverage since he is a low-profile individual who has only ever been covered in relation to one event. I commend you passion on this Haaaa and emotional appeal, but Wikipedia is built on consensus which I feel does not support this article's keeping. Of course the event is verifiable and thus it could do well to be inserted into whichever neuroscience article you see fit, but of himself I don't think he needs article right now. Of course, if the community's consensus is otherwise, then I will be happy to accept. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 11:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- BLP1E doesn't apply mostly because he's dead and on the balance of probabilities that somehow seems unlikely to change. Quite right though about the consensus thing. I expect others will vote accordingly. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, thanks for pointing that out about his death - I didn't see that. Apologies for the mistake there. WP:BLP1E does in indeed not apply. However, WP:1E does apply, and given this my original position still stands - I think the event or in this case single feature in his life is the only thing notable about him and thus he should be merged into the relevant neuroscience article. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 11:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. There is just enough notability, as a mix of general and scholarly media. There is more from ABC/Getty http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache:qMsIB56YYDYJ:scholar.google.com/+%22tommy+mchugh%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 here. I looked for a place to merge, but that's not obvious. Personality changes, for instance, would have to expand quite a bit before cases like Tommy McHugh and Phineas Gage can start to belong there; and even then a redirect could make more sense.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 13:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - Multiple instances of published coverage dealing substantially with the subject. Therefore, passes GNG. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep — as per User:Carrite, multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources so passes WP:GNG. As regards the WP:1E argument, really it's the transformation of McHugh that is of note rather than McHugh himself, and the article is essentially about this transformation. Possibly another name for the article might be better, but I can't think of one.--A bit iffy (talk) 19:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Barney, T or C, and Carrite. WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2013 (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.