Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan November

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. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Alan November

Alan November (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is a procedural nomination as the article has been tagged for notability since June 2007. There seems to be some third party coverage of the subject (shown by a Google News search), but I have not seen anything that would satisfy WP:BIO. I leave it up to you to decide the article's fate. Skomorokh 15:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The article needs improvement but it is fairly clear that the subject is a notable educator under both WP:BIO and WP:PROF. There is, for example, considerable news coverage of him as an educator: 117 googlenews hits[1], most are related to him. A few representative quotes from these news-stories: "Alan November, a leader in the use of educational technology"[2], "Alan November -- noted author and speaker and co-founder of the Stanford Institute for Educational ..."[3], "Alan November, an internationally recognized speaker on education technology"[4], "Alan November, an internationally recognized ed-tech leader and consultant"[5], and so on. Here is a story about him receiving a national educational award[6] (named after Christa McAuliffe, one of the Challenger austranauts). Certainly enough here to pass WP:BIO and, probably, both criteria 4 and 7 of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Actually notable. the beginning made my pause, but he has done what is claimed, and it has been referrred to in multiple RSs. DGG (talk) 03:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• comment i am a little concerned about the use of "procedural nomination:". I understand that to mean wen one sends an article to afd on behalf of someone, or the like technical step. Having a notability tag for any length of time whatever is not reason for nomination--the proper "procedure" at that point is an attempt at sourcing, not passing it to afd as if it were routine.DGG (talk) 03:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep Sufficient notability. Someone working on clearing a category of unclear notability may send this type of article to Afd to elicit some response....slow and cumbersome but a necessary resource. (note: June, 2007 date). --Stormbay (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

someone working on such a project ought to first look for references. DGG (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:BIO based on evidence uncovered by Nsk92.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

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.