Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zachary Mainen

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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Mainen

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

I tagged this for a speedy, but it was contested by another editor, who also removed the tag for multiple problems (notability and advertising). He fails the prof test, referenced only to affiliated sources. Also highly promotional in tone, lots of spamlinks, spam text "watch the video... read the full story... This work touches on philosophical issues surrounding causality, free will, knowledge and belief...." Basically just another researcher promoting his work Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I tried to remove the spam text. I think he may pass WP:PROF. See http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ivDH8SoAAAAJ&hl=en He seems to have lots of citations. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sometimes an autobiographical article can start out spammy, but can be improved by the attention of experienced editors. I added some references.Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:34, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Substantial citations [1] pass WP:Prof#C1 easily. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. On balance, seems to scrape over the scholarly notability threshold, though not by as much as the article's creator would wish! We should get rid of the TED talk nonsense though - that's just (self-)publicity. RomanSpa (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep. Thank you for your feedback. This is the first wikipedia page we ever made and we were not well aware of the guidelines. We did not create it for promotional purposes. We believe the content is valid. We would like to thank you for the edits. As suggested, we also removed the reference to the Ted Talk. Please let us know if any further edits are needed. If you find the page valid, please remove the 'for deletion' tag. Thank you. Zacharymainen (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 09:34, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C1 but admonish the article creator to focus on creating content here for which there is less of a conflict of interest. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2014 (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.