Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candace Young (2nd nomination)


 * 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. L Faraone  00:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Candace Young
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I deleted this by speedy G4, but the contributor urges me that there is more content than previously. I don't think there's nearly enough for notability, but  since it is slightly better referenced, l'm sending it for another community decision. For the discussion,  see their talk p. here, and the request they made on my  talk p.  DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC) �  DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - Non-notable individual. References are lists, lacking substance or articles written by subject.  red dog six  (talk) 01:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. I don't see anything here to change my opinion that she doesn't pass WP:PROF from the previous AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - for reasons I have argued in the referenced pages - her work has been cited by major public university systems and she is referenced in treatises on the subject of assessment. Adamc714 (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - she sufficiently satisfies the fourth criteria.Jcs7708 (talk) 19:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC) — Jcs7708 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic and has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Adamc714.
 * Delete. No evidence of notability, certainly not WP:Prof. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC).
 * Delete Doesn't pass the bar for any of the WP:PROF criteria. Ray  Talk 14:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt: This is nothing but puffery for a relatively unknown academic failing WP:GNG, WP:BIO and all 9 criteria of WP:PROF.  Toddst1 (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete — She's still distant from passing WP:PROFESSOR. No significant change, and criterion 4 is nowhere near. Expertise has not been recognized in any third party publication. In fact, WP:GNG is pretty distant as well because of the lack of reliable coverage by unrelated parties. JFHJr (㊟) 21:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. As suggested by Toddst1, salting may be appropriate, too. Does not seem to have improved noticeably since the previous AfD (I have no access to the deleted version, so this is judging from the comments made during that discussion). Some drummed-up stuff, nothing substantial enough to pass WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. --Randykitty (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Salting is inappropriate here. The original article did not attempt to meet Criterion #4, which was the aim of the second version of the article. The failed notability votes are based on entirely different claims of notability, not merely an attempt to resurrect a previously decided issue. Adamc714 (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear: The salting would be to prevent Adamc714 from continuing to recreate this article which looks like it will be deleted a second time for the same problem(s). Toddst1 (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - That's a bit ridiculous. Look at the amount of time between the first article and the second. This isn't some pointless undertaking - this was clearly a good faith effort to establish notability. I even asked an admin before recreating the article. There is no need to limit me if, in the future, I can find sources to win on the issue of notability. Adamc714 (talk) 17:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This editor has been indefinitely blocked after numerous sockpuppets were been identified. Toddst1 (talk) 14:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per refs from first AfD, but do not Salt. It's been three years since the last AfD, and it appears that while the article was voted for deletion, it was not actually deleted in the 2010 AfD and the main writer (Adamc714) is clearly a productive contributor whose articles add to WP. I wish we could protect against recreation for a fixed amount of time (Peppering?), say 3 or 4 years after which time it may be appropriate to reevaluate the subject's qualifications. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, salting doesn't mean that an article cannot ever be re-created. Ot just means that it cannot be re-created without admin intervention. All an editor needs to do is convince an admin that enough has changed since the last AfD to warrant article creation. Meaning a much lower probability of finding ourselves at yet another AfD just because some trivial sources popped up, the improvement would need to be significant to convince an admin to remove the salt. --Randykitty (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but I believe that the bar to getting an admin to remove a SALT decision is pretty high and I'm not sure that the number of recreations on this article warrants such close scrutiny. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * From WP:SALT,  Contributors wishing to re-create a salted title with more appropriate content should contact an administrator (look for one who was previously involved) or use the deletion review process. No big deal. Toddst1 (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Much unsourced assertion and claims seem to be not much more than typical academic fodder. Agricola44 (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2013 (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.