Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Sipe

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. Consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Sipe

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

Biography of a non-notable person, who fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. So much unsourced BLP and WP:PUFFERY. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Userfy - Notable person with bad references. Page should stay but the references should be improved upon. --☣Anar chyte☣ 00:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on the references this week and get them up to par. Am I responding to these correctly? This has been an extremely confusing process and I appreciate your assistance User:Anarchyte Thank you! TGCJKS197276 (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability under WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR, and the references that are there seem to be primarily PR or notices. The one book that is claimed to be a best seller on Amazon was self published using Create Space, and, According to WorldCat, held in only one library WorldCat book entry. The other publications listed in WorldCat are mainly training videos. Analysis of his citation record is complicated because there is another CL Sips who works on mentoring of adolescents and is quite possible notable; the 1 paper I found in GS (and for which is is only one of an number of authors) ," Proposal for a New Screening Paradigm.." has only 31 citations. GS shows that really important articles in this field have 1000s of citations. We should hunt up the researchers writing these and write article on them. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't have evidence for passing WP:GNG nor WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To add to the above, WoS shows he has written many papers, none of which have been cited a single time. The paper David mentioned above has 14 citations, but Sipe is neither corresponding nor first author. References are almost all web ephemera. Agricola44 (talk) 16:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Update I am working on the citations over the next couple of days. I'm trying to get the article up to par and will be citing the WoS papers as well. Thank you all for your time and for the assistance. TGCJKS197276 (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the interest of disclosure for the panelists commenting here, TGCJKS197276 is a paid editor for both this article and the one on Daniel M. Ritchie. Agricola44 (talk) 17:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]
- I doubt it will make much difference to the outcome, which looks reasonably clear at this point, but for me this implies that we should not userfy this article, just delete it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2015 (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.