Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Hopkin


 * 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. Keep opinions do not address the delete opinions that demonstrate that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Paul Hopkin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article's subject appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. References consist mostly of the subject's own publications, links to listings of his publications, or summary reviews of these publications with no in-depth coverage of the subject himself. Other references are insider magazine announcements and a youtube video, neither of which constitute reliable evidence of notability. Subject has won no national awards or received any particular merit for his accomplishments. I do not see coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. KDS 4444 Talk  09:58, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete per WP:FAILN, Paul hopkin has coverage sufficient to cover variability, but not the coverage of Notability. routine coverage that gets the facts and primary sources are needed in a good article. but without notability writing the article in Wikipedia isn't the best solution. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * edited thanks for the comments. irrelevant references removed and the article simplified. any comments to avoid deletion appreciated singo66 — Singo66 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not seeing the mainstream reviews for his book that would give a pass of WP:AUTHOR, and if those reviews did exist there would still be a question of whether he passes WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * dont' delete meets criteria  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roller1001 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)  — Roller1001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.