Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victor Carrion

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Carrion

[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)

The claim to notability is thin and the sources here don't go anywhere to supporting the claim of notability. This article isn't linked from other articles, other than the article for her sister. A Google search didsn't turn up any additional sourcing to support a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Alansohn (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the academic notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the sourcing isn't the best, but full professor at a major teaching hospital should be able to pass WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps someone should be able to pass, but based on what? The sourcing here doesn't support notability. Can you provide the sources to back up your claim? Alansohn (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NPROF. The current state of the article is irrelevant as AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources here are directory entries and obituaries of siblings. There's nothing here that's a claim of notability and my search for sourcing to support a claim found nothing. I'd cleanup the article if I could, but where are the sources? They are most definitely relevant. Alansohn (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Nominator comments remain open.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, AmericanAir88^(talk) 20:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the article that is a credible claim of notability and sources of too poo a quality io establish notability.
Delete fails WP:NPROF. KartikeyaS (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn, thank you for asking. I saw lots of citations on Google scholar, and was able to verify he's a full professor at a major research university, but secondary coverage about him is weak, hence my "weal keep" !vote. Bearian (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom, user:KartikeyaS, and AFD is not cleanup. Wait!, what?. The essay of "arguments to avoid" also contains Surmountable problems: However, some articles do reach the so-called TNT tipping point: an article should exist, but the article (and all the versions in history) is too deeply flawed to work from. When that point is reached, deletion provides a reset, and give editors a clean slate. Family member obituaries do not provide sourcing for anything but to show sourcing. Certainly the scant remaining sources do not advance any notability (WP:Notability (people)). Being a professor ("...should be able to pass WP:PROF") does not give automatic notability. A presumption still needs verifying. Giving as mush leeway as possible the 8 specific criteria of WP:NACADEMIC must be among the rationale and there still has to be proof to satisfy the guideline, especially the "General notes" and Specific criteria notes. Otr500 (talk) 05:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking strong WP:RS Alpateya (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alpateya is a blocked sock. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:36, 18 March 2020 (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.