Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Bateman


 * 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.  Sandstein  07:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Chris Bateman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Marked as autobiographical/promotional since 2011. Refbombed with primary sources. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. A redirect to Discworld Noir might be in order. czar 14:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  14:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  czar  14:43, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete at best as I myself could not comfortable comprehend the article and it's frankly better to restart anew with better information and sources, questionable at best. SwisterTwister   talk  06:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, found these -, a mention at page 346 in a book Affective Computing and Interaction: Psychological, Cognitive and Neuroscientific Perspectives: Psychological, Cognitive and Neuroscientific Perspectives, stating a review of one of his books appeared in Make (magazine), and Amazon shows that another one of his books has been reviewed academically(?) - ; but he still probably needs more stronger sources (are any cited in the article non-primary?) to be deemed notable. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks sufficient secondary sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficient evidence of academic impact to pass WP:PROF and insufficient evidence of reliable independent sources that cover the subject in-depth to pass WP:GNG. Although the article has many footnotes, I could not find one that was reliably published, independent of the subject and his employers, and about rather than by the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2016 (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.