Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Kraft


 * 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.  Wifione  Message 06:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Daniel Kraft

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article's vanispampuffery content is so high it could be nominated for speedy deletion as spam. References are to primary sources, nothing the subject does guarantees automatic notability, and a quick search of the internet reveals nothing to make him pass the GNG. I keep running into articles like this from Singularity University people, and I hope that's a coincidence. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete With grudging compliments to the different SPAs that over the years have "maintained" this article: at first sight this looks like an impressive academic. Until you actually start reading... Lots of puffery, nothing of substance. --Randykitty (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That was my experience exactly. Drmies (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete He is a faculty member at an unaccredited university. Such people are very rarely notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Teasing out the academic impact is made a bit harder as there is an homonym working at the Mayo Clinic and University of Minnesota, but the impact seems short of WP:Prof in any case. Going five SERPs deep, I could not find evidence satisfying WP:BIO either; some talks, but no WP:RS about the subject.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I see a lot of self-promotion and minor awards, none of which are bad things in themselves but they don't add up to notability. No evidence of passing WP:PROF. And we don't have the in-depth coverage in reliable sources needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2014 (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.