Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Kropveld: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:23, 5 October 2014

Mike Kropveld

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP that does not meet WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC. Minimal citation found in scholar, web, news search - nothing that meets BLP Notability criteria. Tgeairn (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Info-Cult, since that is what he is mainly known for, as per these sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] Jinkinson talk to me 20:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete the Vice article is the only one that I would say is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and one in-depth source really isnt enough. Brief quotes in the paper or mentions in non-reliable sources doesnt cut it. Nwlaw63 (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- merge would have been an alternative - except the INFO-CULT article has been deleted by the nominator. I have now added another notable reference (and expanded the article slightly), which in combination with the VICE reference, demonstrates notability. Zambelo; talk 13:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Even with the sources mentioned above, insufficient substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources to meet any of our notability guidelines. Unremarkable academic with no extraordinary accomplishments or awards, and coverage that is run-of-the-mill, routine and trivial at best, and perhaps even lackluster. My own searches turned up nothing promising. Fails WP:PROF by a wide mile. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

His story was publishes as a book and subsequent award winning film. Pretty substantial coverage. Zambelo; talk 17:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 16:52, 5 October 2014 edit Dominus Vobisdu (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 8,436 edits →‎Mike Kropveld ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:23, 5 October 2014 edit undo Zambelo (talk \| contribs) 2,921 edits comment Next edit →
Line 14:		Line 14:

	*'''Delete:''' Even with the sources mentioned above, insufficient substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources to meet any of our notability guidelines. Unremarkable academic with no extraordinary accomplishments or awards, and coverage that is run-of-the-mill, routine and trivial at best, and perhaps even lackluster. My own searches turned up nothing promising. Fails [[WP:PROF]] by a wide mile. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu\|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu\|talk]]) 16:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)		*'''Delete:''' Even with the sources mentioned above, insufficient substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources to meet any of our notability guidelines. Unremarkable academic with no extraordinary accomplishments or awards, and coverage that is run-of-the-mill, routine and trivial at best, and perhaps even lackluster. My own searches turned up nothing promising. Fails [[WP:PROF]] by a wide mile. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu\|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu\|talk]]) 16:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

			* His story was publishes as a book and subsequent award winning film. Pretty substantial coverage. <span class="vcard"><span class="nickname">[[User:Zambelo\|Zambelo]]</span>; [[User talk:Zambelo\|talk]]</span> 17:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)