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 as lacking independent sourcing. WP:COI is not by itself a reason for deletion if the article otherwise meets the inclusion requirements, but if a self-authored article makes claims of accomplishments which are not investigated by independent sources the article fails WP:NPOV and, in a number of claims in the article, WP:V. This is not an injunction against restoration if independent sources are found. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas William Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article is written entirely by the person himself, no claim of actual notablity and sources section is cramed with nonsense. The article was tagged with proposed deletion and tag was removed by author. --Joebengo (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem not to understand the field of astronomy and planetarium education to make the statement above. Furthermore, one might expect just about any political chair and former candidate for public offices to be of some significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tham153 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being the chair of a local interest group in response to a local issue hardly makes someone notable, nor does being the chair of a political party in a specific county of a state make someone notable, and furthermore by being a candidate in a local or state government and losing with only about 2% of the vote constitute as notable? Basically this article is an autobiography written almost entirely by the User himself, along with the fact that every article that links to this article was placed in by the user himself to promote himself. --Joebengo (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - non-notable person. Fails the biography requirements. Unsourced and filled with self-serving statements. In addition, this article appears to be an autobiography - users are strongly discouraged from writing articles about themselves. If you're notable, someone else will notice and write the article for you. This saves you a lot of work! : ) - Chardish (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as autobiography of a non-notable scientist. Keep per WP:PROF. While we appreciate your contributions in other Wikipedia articles, I cannot find enough of a notability assertion in your own autobiography to justify an encyclopedia article on your career. Maybe in a more specialized publication, but not in a general-purpose one. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Self-serving autobio. Nothing obviously notable here. --Crusio (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the work in planetarium development is notable, and is supported by publications. WP:COI very specificially does not say it is a reason for exclusion, and neither does WP:AUTO. a great many articles in WP started out this way. Keep and develop further. DGG (talk)!~
• Keep. Plenty of verifiable sources are listed in the article. Just because they are not online doesn't make them any less verifiable. If there are COI issues then they should be fixed by editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable for work in science education in informal settings (e.g., planetaria). ... And where are all the fan hordes who usually preserve every person who ever auditioned for some role that was only in the pilot of the TV series that was cancelled after 5 episodes? I guess they're not around for child actors before the 70s. --Lquilter 20:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a misguided application of WP:AUTO, which is not a criteria for deletion anyhow. RFerreira 07:35, 2 December 2007 (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.