Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Knope

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Knope

[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)

seems self promotion and creators sole contributions IW. (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I worked on the article, which is now reorganized and improved upon, with reliable, third-party sources now referenced. Puffery and seemingly self-promotion verbiage has been removed. The subject has received substantial coverage in his field. Meets WP:GNG and passes WP:BIO. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Great work by AuthorAuthor. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC KidAd (talk) 00:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly the subject comes nowhere near passing any of the criteria of WP:NACADEMIC, so I don't know where that idea came from. As regards WP:GNG, as far as I can see the only of the citations in the article that do any more than namecheck the subject are links to Youtube and to an interview with him by a web site that anyone can write for. I can find nothing better in my own searches. I can't see even one independent reliable source with significant coverage. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2020 (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.