Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Donahue

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Donahue[edit]

[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)

Lack of notability; most sources used are either primary (the academic institutions that the subject is affiliated to), or non-independent secondary (college newspaper to which the subject is affiliated. There is also the possibility of sockpuppetry as the main contributors have only or mostly just edited this article (see edit logs of Curation architecture, Foxstreet9, Archhistory_curator). Further this article was previously deleted in 2008 (but maybe for a different person of the same name?) also for lack of notability, and in 2021 a draft of the article was deemed not publishable for similar reasons. Some potential counterarguments to deletion are that albeit brief, the article is well structured, appears to include citations for all claims, is well illustrated, and the subject has received some awards. Al83tito (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and Pennsylvania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Almost all of the citations either have a connection to the subject, are self-published, or include a passing mention. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:23, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An uncomprehensive WP:BEFORE check found multiple other Alex Donahues, and the same types of citations bad for WP:GNG. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems WP:NOTYET to me. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as he lacks in depth coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. Pikavoom ^Talk 06:19, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG Kazanstyle (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and appears to only exist in order to promote the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2022 (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.