Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Whitburn

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Whitburn

Not notable Smartse (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Whitburn. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I worked with the creator to improve the page, but have no opinion on the notability Stuartyeates (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ This is a different case to Sarah, in my opinion. He has been the subject of what I believe to be (from WP:BIO) "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject": [1]. However, whether the depth of coverage is substantial, something WP:BIO looks for, I will defer to the consensus of other editors. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete After further consideration I do not believe one article is substantial coverage. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My, my...someone's bigging up the Whitburn siblings in clear violation of WP:VSCA. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial coverage in independent sources, therefore fails notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails notability. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This person is notable in New Zealand, and very highly notable in the property investment community over here. NOTE 10 MAY 2009 EDITS. Whitburn is speaking to our property investors' association in Wellington later this year. I am appalled at the site page creator and some editors not googling David Whitburn in which case it is glaringly obvious that he is a prominent and notable person, more than worthy of his page staying on Wikipedia. I understand that the users above seem to be not in New Zealand, or the right communities - however there is a paucity of New Zealanders on Wikipedia, and many people with far far fewer external references have had their pages up for a long time. After doing some googling as I watched a movie I noticed the first dozen or so entries being on David Whitburn, with a plethora of references, comments and articles in New Zealand's leading papers, online forum and a number of external blog sites being used. He is sought for comments and has appeared on New Zealand radio stations, papers, magazines - I have heard and read them. Whilst I don't expect editors to know this, I am somewhat disappointed that the editors above did not seem to do this basic research. We as Wikipedia editors should strive and actually try to keep good New Zealanders pages up, rather than deleting them. Wikipedia doesn't have the traction in New Zealand, that it has in other countries. Suggesting or voting to take down sites rather than doing the simplest research, or letting New Zealanders police their own people, would be a nice start rather than simply commenting negatively from abroad. I have as a result built the site up today to include several more external references including: The New Zealand Herald (New Zealand's largest newspaper) - www.nzherald.co.nz/property/news/article.cfm?c_id=8&objectid=10536971&pnum=2, The Sunday Star-Times (probably New Zealand's largest Sunday newspaper) - www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/business/560369, The New Zealand Property Investor Magazine (New Zealand's leading property investment magazine) via their Publisher's Tarawera Publishing Limited's website - www.landlords.co.nz/read-article.php?article_id=3409. Other New Zealand property investors will attest to hearing David Whitburn present to them around the country, but particularly in our nation's largest city Auckland. Something I will try to build on in the future is Whitburn's passion for cutting the red tape and reducing the costs to home-owners, developers and builders in terms of council and ancillary professional fees. Whitburn has made submissions to various councils, government departments on this, and spoken to various media (particularly radio) and property investors associations for his crusade against bureaucracy. This cause has further increased Whitburn's notability. I am not the best person to add this content to David Whitburn's page - however I think i could make a start on it even though it is not an online campaign. Energyhelen (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still not convinced personally. He's developed 150 houses (not that many). He has given some commentary on the property market to newspapers - note that these have been passing remarks rather than articles on David Whitburn. He blogs. Even with these new sources I still view this article as borderline spam and still do not feel that proper notability has been asserted. Oh and this "Whitburn is speaking to our property investors' association in Wellington later this year" seems to demonstrate a conflict of interest I'm afraid. Smartse (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment Above Whitburn has spoken to a number of property investor associations around New Zealand. By being one of over 400 members of Capital Property Investors' Association (note not an owner - just a member of an Incorporated Soceity not entitled to receive any monies from it, I just pay an annual subscription fee) and also a property investor). Therefore I think your attempt to point out a conflict of interest is totally unfounded and unnecessary Smartse. A sought after person on New Zealand radio stations and popular property presenter over here deserves to be on Wikipedia. Sure his page could be built a lot more - and I am sure it will be. Lets try to grow Wikipedia in New Zealand, rather than remove its already exceedingly small base. Energyhelen (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (a) I don't believe that in any of the sources the subject is independent as required. (b) I have serious doubts about an undeclared COI when faced with an emotionally charged rant from a user with less than 4 days experience. (c) I don't believe there's any evidence that there's a shortage of New Zealanders on Wikipedia (I'm a kiwi, as is clear from my userpage).Stuartyeates (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after rereading the page and examining the edit histories of some of the editors involved, I fail to find either (a) an experienced editor who seems to think it's a good idea or (b) a single independent article which is about Whitburn. There are clearly editors who seem to believe that this page is a good idea. Let them develop the page as a User subpage to show they can prove notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is Wikipedia not the Yellow Pages.Daveosaurus (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 20:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A google search throws up plenty of hits but not a single one that is either reliable or from a third party- as interesting as I'm sure his facebook profile is! HJMitchell You rang? 12:23, 12 May 2009 (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.