Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Kade

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, with regrets. In light of the cogent nomination, the burden of proof is on the asserters of notability to prove their case, and unfortunately the sources produced in this instance do not support retaining a biography of a living person. Skomorokh 18:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kade[edit]

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

Prodded by me and contested. Does not appear to satisfy the criteria of WP:BIO. Google Web, News, Books, and Scholar searches for "Alex [or Alexander] Kade +"General Motors" establish that, yes, he has received or shared some patents but turn up no information at all about the person, so that the biographical information in the article seems basically unverifiable. Of the two references supplied in the article, the first contains no mention of his name, and the second is one of those self-supplied what-I'm-doing-now alumnus notes in a university magazine. Other than the in-house GM ones, the "awards" listed seem to be for GM innovations rather than for him personally (though I'm just guessing, since I can't find any evidence of them online). Deor (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. The article is only a week old, created by a new editor, and the core content appears verifiable. Rather than filling the new editor's page with templates, it would have been better to offer some help. Article appears salavageable by someone with access to the not-online archives of the magazines giving the awards mentioned in the article (or, alternatively, an editor with such access could report that the article subject isn't mentioned). No rush here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main point, perhaps obscured in the nom, is that even if everything in the article were verified, I don't think the result would demonstrate notability. (One thing that seems unlikely to be verified is the statement that he was born in Austria in 1956, then "immigrated to the United States of America, arriving at Ellis Island in 1955." Aside from the obvious chronological problem there, the Ellis Island immigration facility happens to have been shut down in 1954.) Deor (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep Senior technical fellow at GM is notable. I assume the dates are typos, but this is the sort of thing that has to be checked. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:48, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails both WP:BIO and the GNG. Not even verifiable for the most part. This kind of misinformation is harmful to the encyclopedia. There is no consensus that a senior researcher at GM is notable, that is merely DGG's personal opinion and it is not backed up by anything credible in this instance. That an article is new does not mean that the subject is notable. Let's deal with facts and reality and not wishy-washy I Like It or I Can't Really Tell arguments. Drawn Some (talk) 16:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no information to indicate subject is notable. The first reference does not mention the subject's name, and even if it did it did, the fact that a company gives an "award" (probably in lieu of a bonus) is not notable. The second reference is a very minor document from the engineering section of a university, with a list of any graduates who have done anything at all of interest to fellow graduate engineers. Searching finds nothing notable for the subject. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2009 (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.