Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Roes


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Nick Roes

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Certainly accomplished, but not enough in-depth sourcing to meet WP:GNG, and definitely doesn't meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Searches did not turn up enough to indicate he passes WP:NAUTHOR, either.  Onel 5969  TT me 00:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 00:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Notability questions. I'm open to feedback from other editors on the notability. One of this subject's peers -- noted in the Wiki as a wiki link -- has fewer citations but a solid page which was considering in publishing this subject's page as they are related. I agree WP:NSCHOLAR and WP:NAUTHOR are not appropriate, but I feel WP:GNG standard is met with the handful of citations on the subject.  Happy to work with other editors to improve the article accordingly.10Sany1? (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is so heavily promotional, so clearly based on personally-provided materials (e.g. "Certificate of Recognition from New York State"), and so unrelated to its creator's other edits as to make me strongly suspect undisclosed paid editing. Regardless of whether the subject is notable (and he may be, as a book author at least), WP:TNT or even possibly WP:CSD applies. More attention to possibly-promotional editing is warranted at a couple of articles that are otherwise unrelated: Caroline Casagrande and Jill Kelley (where the same editor was reverted twice by User:C.Fred and User:Fat Irish Guy). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologize User:David_Eppstein if you are misunderstanding my edits. I closely follow many topics, including politics, history among other things. I also watch pages I edit as some editors seem to have personal issues with political figures especially, and violatae WP:BLP rules entirely.
 * Curious User:David_Eppstein help me understand what you feel is promotional in this article? Happy to consider your thoughts. 10Sany1? (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * improved article removed info unrelated to subject as author or addiction specialist. Also pointing out William Richard Miller page defines a peer of subject, an article with fewer resources, books and citations.  WP:AUTHOR should be reconsidered here.10Sany1? (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Still heavily promotional. If you are looking for tips for improvement, my first would be: disclose your conflicts of interest, as Wikipedia requires you to do. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not asking you how to improve the article, I was asking you to declare in what way you feel it's promotional, as it is not promoting anything. Can you explain why specifically you are saying this is promotional?  There is no conflict of interest here, not sure why you immediately assume so?  Not exactly assuming good faith.10Sany1? (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 20:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. No pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC).
 * Keep. The article has been improved with additional secondary sources that appear to be reliable. In my mind, enough has been done to make this article worth keeping.--Concertmusic (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:TNT this mostly primary-sourced article.  There might be a marginal case for WP:NAUTHOR, but I haven't seen anyone make it.  I don't see any case in sight for WP:NPROF, nor significant coverage in independent sources for GNG. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * delete this is an inflated spammy paid for biog that doesn't have any basis in any of our notability criteria. Praxidicae (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * comment There are several pages of people in similar field, with seemingly less support of WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR or any other special category of notability, yet those pages are acceptable.:
 * Insoo Kim Berg
 * David D. Burns
 * Stephen_Rollnick

10SFan (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2020 (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.