Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Giesbrecht


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Esquivalience t 01:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Gordon Giesbrecht

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of an academic, written very much like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article (see, in particular, the section which attempts to list every individual media appearance he ever made as a commentator) and resting almost entirely on primary sources rather than reliable source coverage. He might certainly qualify to keep a properly written and properly sourced article, but no Wikipedia inclusion criterion ever confers an exemption from our content policies — as written, in fact, this technically qualifies as a G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) speedy, with the fact that the article is about two years old already being the only reason I'm taking it to AFD instead of pulling the speedy trigger. Delete unless the article can be rewritten in a properly sourced manner. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Article needs cleanup (e.g. the section filled with non-notable awards should just be deleted) but with a clear area of expertise (medical effects of coldness), multiple academic publications with over 100 citations each (in Google scholar), a book with multiple published reviews and in-depth popular-press coverage in multiple sources (the Outside Magazine reference and this syndicated LA Times article) I think he has a good claim to WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, and WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  Talk   12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ☮  JAaron95  Talk   17:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly passes WP:ACADEMIC. He is widely cited in his field. Article needs cleanup, but this isn't a reason for deletion. Due diligence not performed. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  13:14, 18 August 2015 (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.