Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles E Hardy

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles E Hardy[edit]

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

I'm not finding evidence of notability. The one reference merely lists him as a consultant on a project. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is mentioned as the recipient of prestigious National Award http://www.yale.edu/opa/arc-ybc/v29.n31/story112.html. There are other sources which I have not yet added. User:Jayzburger 18:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the National Award is, but that isn't what that source says he won. He received a National Science Foundation fellowship. According to NSF-GRF, this is awarded to 2,000 doctoral students every year. I'll be interested to see the other sources, but this award doesn't really set him out from the crowd. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid the linked award doesn't really make him notable. Someone who is supposed to be a renowned expert, I would expect to find a list of publications with some impact. However, a superficial google search failed to come up with any publication. Did he actually finish his PhD? What was the title of his dissertation? His profile at linkedin doesn't really support the idea that he meets the notability criteria. And just wondering: how do you know (and what reference can you cite) for the claim that he is also a talented musician, singer, and poet? -- O.Koslowski (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned previously, sources will be added. Here is another source describing emerging issues that are highly valuable to the field of civil engineering: http://www.cvcwa.org/sites/default/files/conferences/05-Pelz%20Hardy-Controlling%20Methylmercury.pdf Also, I am currently trying to locate info on his PhD/dissertation. He is a regular performer at the Oak Park Christian Center. Performances can be found online. User:Jayzburger talk 21:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to understand what you believe that slide presentation conveys that establishes Hardy's notability. I skimmed through it and then ran a search on "hardy". As far as I can tell, it doesn't mention the man once, let alone is it an example of a secondary reliable source giving him significant coverage. Is this a presentation he created? If so, then it seems that you're thinking something to the effect of, "This man is producing research and presenting findings that I find to be important. Therefore, people should take note of him, and he merits an article on Wikipedia." If that's what you had in mind, I need to tell you that that's not how Wikipedia sets forth the criteria for inclusion. Again, there needs to be significant coverage of the person in reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't say what you meant by "regular performer", but singing in your own church, for example, doesn't equate to being a suitable topic for Wikipedia. Also, a Google search for mentions of "oak park christian center" accompanied by the words "charles" and "hardy" yields nothing. Wikipedia is interested that he's a talented performer only if secondary reliable sources give significant coverage to his performance and classify him as talented. Even if there's a video of him online, if you're making the judgment yourself as to his talent, that's insufficient. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he did produce the report. See link:http://www.cvcwa.org/conference Also, as noted in the notability criteria, secondary sources do not have to be found online. I have contacted the subject directly for sourcing information. He notably performs on a local/regional scale (the sources for which I have inquired directly) User:Jayzburger talk 5:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Delete, no indication of actual notability per WP:BIO, reeks of self-promotion. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourcing that leads me to believe that the person meets the criteria for WP:SCHOLAR or WP:GNG and I certainly can't find any myself. If the creator does in fact provide actual reliable sources, I'd be willing to change my opinion (I'm skeptical), but as of now, there's no reason for this to be here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I can't find any evidence of academic impact (there's another Charles E Hardy who has been publishing since the 1970s on forest fires but appears not to be the same person), and student fellowships explicitly do not count for WP:PROF. He also does not appear to pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Nwlaw63 (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete Each editorial response has been given after a very brief skimming of the internet. As found in the notability criterion, the person in the article does not have to be cited online. There are myriad sources attesting to the subjects notability, of which I am currently inquiring directly to the said person. User:Jayzburger talk 5:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)— Jayzburger (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The sourcing doesn't necessarily have to be online but it actually has to exist. That to find these "myriad sources" requires directly inquiring the subject of the biography for assistance is not an auspicious sign for the subject's notability.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing doesn't necessarily have to be online and it does exist. I have attended several professional seminars taught by this person. It would be easier to go directly to the source, rather than search libraries or scholarly article databases. However, I am looking into other resources as well.Jayzburger (talk) 15:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance at a seminar does not count as a reliable source. The sources need to be published, they need to be by someone other than the subject and cover the subject in nontrivial detail (rather than merely being by the subject or mentioning the subject only briefly) and (if offline) they need to be verifiable by other people who can look up that publication. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was unable to find any reliable sources and there are none cited in the article. Happy to have a look at any sources anyone else finds and change my opinion if appropriate. ~KvnG 17:51, 10 October 2013 (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.