Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clark Aldrich (3rd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Aldrich

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

This article has been used to harass the subject, it is also subject to edits that are hard to verify due to lack of sources. Four are currently cited: one is a profile in a trade magazine, one appears to be a namecheck, the other two appear to be primary sources (and perhaps not independent). They are not linked inline so the text itself, which is - ahem -stylistically problematic - is hard to verify. Most of the article is by WP:SPAs. Overall, this is causing a lot of trouble for a poorly written article, and I thik we can do without it. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 00:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you explain how it is being used to "harass the subject"? I can find no evidence of this on the talk page or in past AfD discussions. Silver seren^C 01:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Clark_Aldrich. I'm not sure harass is the right word. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically, the claim is completely untrue then. Good to know. So, what was the point of this AfD again? Silver seren^C 07:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has value in bringing together the published works of Aldrich and updating the profile and career. This is useful to those who are involved or are developing research and products in this niche area of 'simulations' Paulpen (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The best method to show that Mr. Aldrich is notable in the field of education simulations is to find more reliable sources, such as news articles, books, journals articles, ect., that discuss him. Like i've been doing. Silver seren^C 07:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Procedural close NPASR~~ The current article bears no resemblance to the nomination argument. There is nothing to discuss here. Unscintillating (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep since the proposal to allow the nominator to reopen the discussion has received no support, and the nomination's concerns appear to have been remedied. Unscintillating (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article seems sound; topic is notable. --do ncr am 11:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Okay, I think i've done all I can with the article for now. I hope it appropriately shows the notability of the subject now. Have a nice day. Silver seren^C 19:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- GreenC 15:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an additional Keep-sentiment !vote that was left on the talk page. -- GreenC 15:15, 26 March 2014 (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.