Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Daimler

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. Kurykh (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Daimler

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial references. "References" either do not mention article subject or are single line mentions of subject. Vanity article. reddogsix (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seconding original opinions. bojo | talk 23:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI am going to address the other concerns mentioned with the article:

1. Verifiability: I have added more sources where someone can go to find more information on the subject. 2.Orphan Article: There are several links in the article that are linked to another Wikipedia article, the following are linked, Hotmail, TiVo, Presidential Innovation Fellows, and Kathleen Carley. 3. External Links: The external links in the body of the article are links to the subjects contributions in his work. The websites have far too much information to be included in the article and is best served as a link for someone to follow if they want to learn more about the specifics with his work. 4. Single Source: Most of my research does come from whitehouse.gov as his major contributions were done here as he works in the white house. whitehouse.gov is a reliable resource. I have also added more references of the places information on the subject can be found. 4. Notability: I have noted some of his published work in the article and the references. He is a presidential innovation fellow which is on wikipedia and many of them have their own wikipedia page. I have included several links in the references on papers he has published.

If anything further needs to be added, I will add it. Rfshearer (talk) 20:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Even in the unlikely chance that Daimler is notable, this article is so flawed in its format, using too many bare links to outside sources and meandering to be a coatrack, that we should delete it and maybe start over, but probably not at this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Please check recent updates. Existing issues has been addressed. It took me days to fixed the all issues. I have cite the contents by reliable references. Promotional contents has been removed. Please remove this nomination. -Rfshearer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:21, 28 March 2017 (UTC) — Rfshearer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Unfortunately, the additional "references"are mostly brief mentions, line listings, or do not mention the article subject. A number of these "references" were previously removed as unrelated. I stand by my original !vote to delete. reddogsix (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because the article has been significantly copy edited and changed compared to its state when it was nominated for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:37, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only 1 citation to his work on GS in well-cited field. Impact is negligible. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2017 (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.