Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Pierre Layman


 * 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Dale Pierre Layman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

non notable minor academic and minor writer. I was asked a few days ago for my opinion at User Talk:Ritchie333, and said: "It's easy to document the books on WorldCat, and that's what I use to prevent WP:BLPPROD when relevant; I do not consider PRnewswire a RS for bio. There are a few more books, but the only significant one is Biology Demystified. ("Running..." is just his phd thesis,which has never been cited; he has no research publications. I added the thesis and the ref to the article.) . The information in the two press releases is absurd hyperbola. The only possible WP:PROF criterion is the subsection of criterion 4, "Tor example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education." One of his book is in 1200 libraries. But it is not a college textbook, but a very elementary presentation--the publisher's blurb found in the Worldcat reference, makes it plain that it is deliberately written to be something easier than a textbook. And I don't think this single book would meet WP:AUTHOR either. I haven't looked for reviews, though. This is an attempt at a promotional bio presumably motivated by a forthcoming publication. A remarkably unsophisticated attempt at puffery, to judge by the originally submitted text, which can still be seen in the ref it was copied from.  DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 11:33, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - I've been a little conflicted on this one, as can be seen in the discussion that led up to this. The subject abundantly fails GNG, and from what I can tell, it's not actually possible at this point to write anything other than a barely and overall poorly referenced stub. Reading DGG's take on it, one in these two areas in particular I respect, arguments for AUTHOR and PROF are borderline at the very best. So I'm inclined to think that in a situation like that, where nothing other than a barely and overall poorly referenced stub can in principle be written on a BLP, we should probably err on the side of deletion, since according to policy, all this poorly referenced material should be removed anyway, leaving us with essentially either a blank page, or a short bibliography for an article.  G M G  talk  12:23, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete I was not part of the discussion referred to above. I ran good faith searches on his name and on Biology demystified but found nothing useful - a Proquest news archive search turned up 5 press releases and nothing else.  Fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:00, 10 April 2018 (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.