Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Ryde


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Robin Ryde

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject appears to fail to meet the notability guidelines. Achievements do not include any awards, references are not independent of the subject, does not appear to have attracted sufficient independent substantive coverage to warrant an article. KDS 4444 Talk  06:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * undecided This new article appears to be self-promotion and is overwhelmingly sourced to stuff written by Robin Ryde; even the citation to "reviews" of his book is to a page of blurbs. As an article, it's an embarrassment to Wikipedia. However, there are real articles that mention him in the trade press: Civil Service World, The Mandarin ;  and a real review of his book in the Irish Times ; and his book was short-listed for a prize .E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Written in a heavily promotional style and poorly sourced, nothing in the article as written adds up to notability, and even if evidence of notability can be found it would need significant rewriting to become encyclopedic. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

edited thanks for the comments and additional references. these have been included and irrelevant refs deleted. copy also toned down. any other suggestion to avoid deletion, appreciated. user: roller1001  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:35, 16 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, Spartaz Humbug! 21:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I added authority control: He has profiles in numerous indexes. I also deleted the section of puff. It just needs to be rewritten in a non-promotional way. —Мандичка YO 😜 01:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. No evidence of passing WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG, nor WP:PROF. He has published stuff, but we don't have enough reviews or other secondary sources to show that his publications have had an impact. The Irish Times review is a good source, but by itself it's not enough. Re "profiles in numerous indexes" from the comment by : being included in a library catalog is not notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:01, 23 April 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.