Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Titzer
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. ffm 18:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Robert C. Titzer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I declined the speedy A7 tag because there seems to be an assertion of notability in here. But I don't see enough to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - ot may not be in the article, but a google search shoes he has written books on te subject of infant learning and this claims he has also appeared on several tv shows. If references could be found for those claims it would meet notability guidelines. Million_Moments (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete seems promotional with 'fascinating' and 'captivating' research. Clubmarx (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- speedy delete as copyvio In checking ghits, it seems though the present article is a copyvio of abc-chicago, and presumably the same potted publicity bio at many of the other places on the net as well. Even if not, it was a possible G11--promotional, with no real factual base to construct an article. I doubt an article on him would qualify even if someone were to rewrite it, as the books are essentially self-published by his own company. DGG (talk) 03:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete two publications listed in ISI WoK, citations 14 and 1. Lots of Peacock, but fails WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2008 (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.