Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Roth (Concordia)


 * 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 02:23, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Alfred Roth (Concordia)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (biographies) requirement. " It was deprodded by User:Rhododendrites with the following rationale "WP:NACADEMIC ". First, let's not forget that WP:PROF is a supplement to WP:GNG and cannot overrule it. I am, nonetheless, biased favorably towards inclusion of academics, but I don't think this one meets any PROF criteria. I don't see any publications to speak of, suggesting he came from the administrative track. Further, "The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Well, it is debatable it this is a major institution - to me this is a minor regional university with no significant world wide impact, so - not major (it is the very definition of minor). Further, the very existence of this individual is hard to prove: no mention of him on the university webpage, google hits are wiki mirrors and forks, cited article does not seem to exist in google outside said mirrors and forks, I don't see said article on HighBeam, GNews, etc. If this is not a WP:HOAX it sure as hell doesn't have much to defend itself with, and it very clearly fails WP:GNG otherwise. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. No sources evident. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete The claim to pass Prof criteria 6 comes from an over broad interpretation of that criteria. In the 1970s the institution in question was just transitioning out of being a high school. It would not actually grant any 4-year degrees until 1988. Even at that Roth might have a chance of being considered passing the criteria if we had some more sources, but the total lack beyond the one source is just not enough.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I deprodded because a claim which typically satisfies one or more notability criteria means at very least the subject merits the closer scrutiny of AfD. Having looked for sources, however, I'm not finding anything more than what others have. Even if he were president of a major university, we need sources to write an article. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:07, 27 June 2017 (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.