Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen A. Parke


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Stephen A. Parke

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears non-notable; Sources don't appear to be on the subject in detail, and are general. Subject has also requested deletion on WP:BLPN -- Mdann 52   talk to me!  06:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Regardless of whether the person requesting the deletion is really the BLP's subject, I agree with Mdann  52  that the subject does not seem to pass WP:BIO.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nominator. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would not !vote delete on this if not for the request, given that he seems to have made major contributions to his field, and the field (semiconductors) is hardly insignificant. Can we direct the user to WP:OTRS to confirm they are the article subject? Ivanvector (talk) 21:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * To be more specific, he passes WP:NACADEMIC #1, #3 (which specifically mentions the IEEE), and #7. Better sourcing is required, however. Therefore I !vote keep, but please consider my argument null if the requester does confirm his ID. Ivanvector (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree, as far as WP:NACADEMIC #1 and #7 I would agree if there were additional sources that showed a significant impact, adoption or use of the published/patented technologies. I don´t think #3 applies as he is not an IEEE Fellow. I myself have two patents on systems and methods related to semiconductor technology that were used by my employer in a successful commercial product. Thousands of other engineers do as well. Personally I am proud of my work, and to have contributed to the development of the state of the art in technology at the time. But in my personal view, I don't think we should be in an encyclopedia for it.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 09:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. per nominator. Request was made to me when I undid a page blanking. I think that the subject of the article could be considered a relatively unknown, non-public figure. Moreover, he is probably not notable per the analysis by Crystallizedcarbon. Although I think this is enough to support the deletion, the request makes the result definite for me. I also would prefer that the person making the request confirm his identity but I do not think that is a prerequisite in this case. (One could wonder why the article has been up for four years but perhaps Mr. Parke did not know about it or whether he could do anything about it.) If the person who is the real subject of the article is not the person who made the request, Mr. Parke could request the article be undeleted if he shows up later and proves his identity. I doubt that will happen because the rationale seems plausible. Donner60 (talk) 18:34, 2 November 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.