Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Vaughan (2nd nomination)

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. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Vaughan[edit]

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

Biography of a research student with no evidence that the subject meets the notability criteria for academics. Previous AfD in 2005 was no-consensus and the article has not improved since then. AllyD (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not meeting WP:PROF. I've no idea how this article has survived this long. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't satisfy any criterion of notability, absurd article.Bill william compton (talk) 17:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't see notability here. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Would seem to meet WP:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 as an article about a real person that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. Tried to check for his publications via their website but got a '403 Forbidden' error. And this is the School of Informatics? Qwfp (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has one 23-citation paper in ALife 2004 and that's it. It's very rare for a student to already be notable for his research and he doesn't seem to be an exception. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. Appears to have no publications in WoS. No sources. Created by IP in Brighton, very possibly the subject, so this likely started out as nothing more than a vanity page. Notability criteria have tightened significantly since the last AfD of this article – by our current standards, this one is an uncontroversial delete. Kudos to nom for bringing this up. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2011 (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.