Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Njoroge Chege

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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herman Njoroge Chege

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC, nor other notability criteria. Filled with puffery, and a long history (back to 2013!) of editing by a single-purpose account, User:Njoroge Wa Chege. Rather cleverly, that user has set a redirect from their user page to Herman Njoroge Chege. A recent PROD was reversed, hence moving to AfD. Klbrain (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Kenya. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of WP:NPROF or other notability apparent; WP:TNT is relevant anyway. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TNT means delete and start over. Do you think someone should start over, i.e. recreate after it gets deleted? Geschichte (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I should've said "would be relevant" (if there were notability). My point is that there is little or nothing of encyclopedic value in the current article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google Scholar shows a single-digit number of publications only one of which has more than one citation. This is far from enough for WP:PROF#C1 in any field, let alone his where the citation counts tend to be very high. The article does not suggest any other potential direction for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Full of puffy words and fluff, this is PROMO. Source 2 is an unreliable source per Source Highlighter (in red), so there is nothing left beyond a publication from the museum; I don't see how an AI programmer making shopping bots getting published in a natural history museum's journal helps notability. Unless it helps the animal in their daily tasks, this seems like a stretch and a rather fanciful one at that... Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. One of the worst puffery/self-promotional articles I have seen. Full of claims that are not backed up. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2024 (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.