Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan Schaul

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. JForget 00:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Schaul[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Publishes a blog, hosts a web-based radio show, has written a handful of online articles, and is on some councils for bear conservation (notability is not inhereted from those). Much of the article isn't even about the subject, per se... for example, most of the section about the web-based radio show is information about previous guests and is only tangential to the actual subject of the article. Hardly anything in the way of WP:RS about the subject himself. Also an apparent WP:COI issue; the primary author of the article may be or has a close connection to the subject. Notability does not appear to have been established. Delete. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)g criteria[reply]

The subject qualified for meeting criteria initially and yes some people who know the subject contributed to the recent edits. They have been removed from access. For an objective process this seems like a bit of a harsh and subjective critique. Users who were giving administrative priv. have been asked not to add more. The subject is notable in the field as were others that were candidates for review based on WP criteria. Hence, please respond to objection that you endeavor to delete this subject as well. Punitive arguments are not conveyed in rulings in any form for nominating someone for deletion. We are trying to respect your rules and learn from mistakes and would hope that you comply with WP as well. Thanks for your consideration. SincerleyZooaction (talk) 20:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: come again? I've clearly cited notability guidelines in my rationale above. The crux is that your statement that "[t]he subject is notable in the field" is not based on any reliable sources. Rather than resorting to ad hominem attacks and calling my actions "punitive" it would be best to respond to my concerns constructively. (Also, your repeated use of first person plural pronouns in your comment seems to indicate there is more than one person using your account, which is discouraged per WP:NOSHARE.) --Kinu ^t/_c 20:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination; subject simply does not have enough coverage in secondary sources to merit his own article. Chromancer (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to respond but appear to be blocked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zooaction (talk • contribs) 21:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC) I apologize for offending administrators. One more individual who is connected to the subject was using the account. I have gone back in off-line and fixed what I could. The person was deemed notable when the entry was added and so I apologize for using the term punative. I also was surprised that Laurel Neme and Celine Cousteau were nominated for deletion as I provided third party references and Celine is Jacques grandaughter. I would like to re-earn priv. as editor and have relinguished the rights for the second person accessing this user account please help me improve the articles thanksZooaction (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand how Wikipedia works. There's never any time when something is "deemed notable" during the article creation process; the only time it ever comes into question is when an article is nominated for deletion. As far as improving the article, what you need to do is find and add reliable sources (see WP:RS for more details) that verify the person is notable enough to meet the notability guidelines for people.Qwyrxian (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the article stands; should more sources be forthcoming, of course, the article could be possible, but at the moment he does not seem notable enough. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to be believe the subject satisfies WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination as well as likely WP:SOAP. All but two pages which Zooaction has edited or created have some connection to Jordan Schaul, from adding his name to lists of Skidmore and John Carrol University alumni to inserting reference to Schaul and his projects mentioned on this page into articles about figures who have been associated with these ventures. In two cases (Grey Stafford, Laurel Neme) the user has created the pages himself, with mention of a Schaul project in the first version both times. This is surely a good-faith misunderstanding of policy, but the page under review and many of this user's edits really do seem to be self-promotion.P.Oxy.2354 (talk) 12:55, 4 September 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.