Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billy Barry


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Billy Barry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article and its sources appear to consist largely of self-promotion and puffery. The subject may be notable as in famous for being famous, but the article needs to be blown up and started over. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete No sign of general notability and the references are trivial; beyond that the article is of poor quality. The pages linked (Living educational theory, Living theory approach, BINA48) might be deletion candidates as well, but I don't support including them in this AfD. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sign of notability. Reads as if written by a student. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:42, 26 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep. Is written by a Ph.D. student who saw him speak at the largest AR& VR conference in the world. His ground breaking work with artificial intelligence beings and human together learning in university is historic. Admittedly, the page needs help. This is actual history. I don't see the puffery in that it written in factual phenomenological terms and any world's first is a rarity in the modern day (especially one of meaning). Let try to help rather then bury a historical achievement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtually Human (talk • contribs) 07:05, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Single-digit average number of citations according to GS, clearly fails WP:ACADEMIC. Rentier (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per the previous deletes. Atsme 📞📧 23:35, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not the place for original research, which means you do not write articles based on having heard a lecture by someone that impressed you. Claims need to be well sourced to reliable sources, this is not the case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:23, 28 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.