Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Membrey

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Membrey

[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)

Non-notable per WP:GNG academic and engineer. Taken from this revision, I did a quick analysis on the sourcing over at the corresponding section at WP:BLPN.[1] This includes self-published sources, primary sourcing, links to websites where published papers can be searched such as semanticscholar.com, and his personal website. On top of the poor sourcing which does not demonstrate notability, the subject has authored several technical books but nothing of the significance in the genre or in terms of overall literature that would support WP:NAUTHOR. WP:NPROF criteria does not appear to be met either.

Sidenote: The subject has requested deletion of the article.[2] Saucysalsa30 (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be non-notable with extremely limited media coverage. And the diff [3] that Saucysalsa30 shared gives the strong impression that the article's subject commissioned the article. Per Wikipedia policy, anyone being paid to create articles here must disclose that fact and this doesn't appears to have happened here. Thanks to Saucysalsa30 for bringing this article up for AfD and raising awareness of a case of possible COI editing.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only criteria that might work here is NAUTH but I do not find any reviews of his books. Admittedly, computer manuals (which is what he writes) don't get reviewed like other books. He's not an academic, and there are no 3rd-party sources about him. Much of what is in the article is unsubstantiated in the sources provided. Lamona (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There's a borderline case for WP:PROF#C1 (three publications with triple-digit citation counts) but it's a high-citation field and the UPC and WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE issues put me on the delete side of the borderline. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that at the moment we can respect the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as his claim to notability is marginal at best. As it is still early in his career, he may become definitively notable in the future, but we can assess that at a later point. Curbon7 (talk) 21:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG we can respect the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE as it is a borderline case for WP:PROF#C1.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2023 (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.