Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lance Grode

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. -- Cirt (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Grode[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. Worked with some notable people, but this doesn't of itself confer notability. No significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous editor. Empty Buffer (talk) 07:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Empty Buffer (talk) 07:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If for no other reason, qualifies under the alternative standard at Wikipedia:Notability (academics): "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor".--Technopat (talk) 18:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article currently needs de-hyping, but that's not an AfD issue.--Technopat (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Note that the alternative standard also says "When used, this criterion is generally applied to indicate that a tenured full or associate professor in a high ranking institution in the US, or equivalent rank elsewhere, is above the average". The subject of this article is an adjunct professor, according to the references cited, and so appears to fail both standards for WP:ACADEMIC. Empty Buffer (talk) 08:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any evidence that he passes WP:PROF, and the only stories about him I can find in Google news are a few nearly-trivial ones about shuffles among entertainment executives. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Certainly not notable as an academic: only an adjunct professor, with no evidence to indicate passing WP:PROF. No evidence of significant specific coverage to show passing WP:BIO either. Nsk92 (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Clearly doesn't meet WP:PROF. He does technically meet the criteria "the academic is more notable than the average college instructor/professor" in the literal sense that 50% of academics meet this criteria, but I think the spirit of the criteria is that he is significantly more notable than the average college prof, which Professor Grode doesn't appear to be. That's subjective, of course--just one wikiman's opinion Vartanza (talk) 05:03, 29 June 2010 (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.

Delete Doesn't meet notability standards. The page is just self-hype. Simply having claimed (un-sourced)to have worked with famous people doesn't get you a wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.137.89 (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]