Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam O. Brown


 * 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. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion  00:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Adam O. Brown

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Assistant professor with three(!) papers and a few extracurricular activities. Prodded and deprodded some time ago. Abductive (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- the wub  "?!"  12:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:Notability (people). Maybe even speedy delete per WP:CSD as an article about a real person that doesn't indicate why its subject is important or significant. (The most significant thing claimed seems to be that he was captain of a fairly successful university fencing team, a claim which doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE). Qwfp (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom and Qwfp. Article created way too early; if not speedy should go via snowball delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The sort of listing of minutiae here is what we get when there isn't enough of significance to say about the subject. I don't tend to approve of speedy deletion of articles on academics – usually they've done enough in a Ph.D. to make some sort of claim of significance, though not usually one that will hold up in an AfD. In this case he's one of the co-authors of a paper that comes up second in Google scholar when one searches for cloudberry pollination, so I guess he's one of the experts in that highly specialized subject. It's far from enough for WP:PROF #1, though, and all the rest of the fluff in the article only makes it look worse. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another classic red-flag here is listing submitted manuscripts as "publications". This sort of information is not even publicly-available, so it probably violates WP:NOR. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC).
 * 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.