Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Grant (programmer)

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Grant (programmer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I'm not seeing how this would pass WP:GNG, WP:NAUTHOR or WP:NPROF. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Can't find any publications by this subject (even though he is characterized as an "author" in the article) or any independent sources covering him. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or any other notability guidelines. Nsk92 (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted below, User:Rawkintrevo appears to be the subject of this article, per their self-identification at their user page. They have already made a major edit [1] to the article, introducing WP:COI. The abortive political candidacy for a relatively minor local office is not notable. The edit also mentions a new paper, published in Sept 2020, and a new book[2], with several co-authors, also published in 2020. There is no indication that either work received significant coverage/reviews/citations that could contribute to potential WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR notability. Nsk92 (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Will update this today- please give me a week to back fill publications before deletion. 24, February 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawkintrevo (talk • contribs) 14:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment AfD discussions typically stay open for a week anyway. But as your userpage indicates you are Trevor Grant, it's probably unwise for you to edit the page yourself as it's a conflict of interest (see WP:COI), but can add requests for edits to the Talk page, or make a case for not deleting here, which will be taken into account by whoever closes the discussion. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment sorry, I didn't realize they stay open for a week- and yes, I did edit- I didn't realize that was a violation. Can we revert my changes, maybe original author will update addressing other concerns? -User:rawkintrevo 24 February 2021
    • I suspect at this stage reverting won't make much difference in practice. -Kj cheetham (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is clearly PROMO. None of his listed accomplishments(?) are remotely close to conferring automatic notability and independent coverage of him is entirely passing or run-of-the-mill. There's also a possible BLP-violating quote embedded in one of the refs regarding opponents in the alderman race. JoelleJay (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What is this stinky pile? He's treasurer of the Apache foundation, withdrew from an election and served in the military. The title sentence is even repeated twice he's so important. Oaktree b (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Run-of-the-mill computer science person clearly fails WP:GNG. The article is also an obvious self-WP:PROMO exercise. KidAd • SPEAK 19:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The closest we have to a claim of notability is that he's one of five coauthors of an O'Reilly how-to book. Even if we had published reviews of that one book, it wouldn't be enough for WP:AUTHOR (or anything else). —David Eppstein (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. DMySon 19:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The article was created for self-promotion. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 00:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable --Devokewater 12:23, 3 March 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.