Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Margeas


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 02:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Bob Margeas

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Undisclosed paid editing. Seems to not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMIC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortex3427 (talk • contribs) 02:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC) Delete So he's a dentist, that attends and is a member of professional associations? I'm basically that in my profession, not notable. Inside Dentistry doesn't seem to be a peer-reviewed journal, so no shot at ACADEMIC. Oaktree b (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Medicine,  and Iowa. ––FormalDude  (talk)  02:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, according to the paid editing site shared above, at least he'll get to keep his page on Wikialpha... I boggles my mind that people pay for a wikipedia article to be created, when it can be done for free. You can even ask at AfC to have it created for you, for free. But you want to drop $400 to that person to do it, have at it I guess. Oaktree b (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * One: what's WikiAlpha? Two: I don't know how much dentists get paid, but I'm guessing it's a lot? — V ORTEX  3427 (Talk!) 04:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Found out what WikiAlpha is. I also found out that, despite WikiAlpha not caring about notability at all and allowing you to create any page, there is still a paid editing site for $50 for a WikiAlpha article. — V ORTEX  3427 (Talk!) 04:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, it's a wikipedia rip-off site, one of hundreds out there. I guess dentists make lots of money as well... If you're notable, we'll create your article here for free. If you have to pay someone, that's probably not a good sign for notability. Same idea with the socks that come out. They only come out when someone isn't notable, otherwise, it would be pointless as the article would be kept on its own merit. Oaktree b (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks significant coverage. He has authored a few papers apparently (usually under Robert, not Bob), but the most cited one has 25 citations and the next one has 6, so that's not a significant academic influence. -- Mvqr (talk) 10:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's plenty of promotionalism in sight but a lack of in-depth coverage in sources that are not promotional (and therefore independent enough for GNG). —David Eppstein (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete Iowauniguy (talk) 03:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:15, 18 January 2023 (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.