Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanford Blade

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) gidonb (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Blade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Single reference doesn't work. Orphan article. Very promotional tone. Article made by single use account that's most likely affiliated with subject matter. Imcdc (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Imcdc (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, without prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually do better than this. I'm not an expert in assessing notability against WP:NACADEMIC, because it permits inclusion under some criteria that are completely unconcerned with whether the person actually has any reliable source coverage or not — but the tone here is so egregiously advertorialized that the WP:TNT treatment is warranted regardless of whether he would clear NACADEMIC or not. Bearcat (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep?. Passes WP:Prof on citation record. Agree with unfortunate tone of the BLP. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. This is a borderline WP:G11. This is a BLP with one source, and that source is a deadlink. The page was created by a user (SF Blade) that appears to have a connection to the article subject based upon their username. Another similarly named user (DRSFBLADE) has also edited the article. Wikipedia is not a place for adcruft: this needs WP:TNT. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are 1500 sources to be found on GS, but I agree that the BLP has problems and TNT may be a solution. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep per meeting WP:PROF as a fellow of the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry. I removed some of the promotional tone per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. TJMSmith (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The pass of WP:PROF#C1 was already anough, but the fellowship and #C3 (already in the article at nomination time) seals the deal. The article still needs some citations but the tone is now mostly neutral enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think we have a pass of WP:PROF, and the content has been de-promotionalized, so we don't need to resort to blowing up the page completely. XOR'easter (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Arguably meets WP:PROF Eric Yurken (talk).
• Keep meets NPROF per citation count and elected membership in scholarly societies. --hroest 19:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as comments above, passes NPROF.Brayan ocaner (talk) 12:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify in line with WP:ATD-I. He's likely notable, but, being that this is a WP:BLP, I have concerns about the article's current state. As is, the vast majority of the article content is unsourced. I could simply delete the content, which would be permitted by policy, but I feel that if this article were to be given significant work, the content could possibly be OK to include. But, it needs that significant work done before this article is ready for the mainspace—articles that do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, even if the article's subject may be notable, should be moved to the Drafts namespace for incubation. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because of numerous citationsJackattack1597 (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep; substantial improvement has been made over the old version, which was quite bad; I am not blown away by the subject's notability, but it does seem that he passes WP:NPROF (as an elected member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry). jp×g 20:21, 10 October 2021 (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.