Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Barth


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  00:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Stephen Barth

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable lawyer/keynote speaker. Lack WP:GNG-style direct and in-depth coverage. DepreciateAppreciate (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 19.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 21:38, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Law,  and Texas.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 00:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  00:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I lean toward delete; but I'm wondering if his textbook "has made a significant impact in the area of higher education" per WP:NACADEMIC #4 (although the discussion under that bullet point suggest that meeting notability through that path requires "several books that are widely used as textbooks"). This is an area of academic law not within my experience, so I will refrain from an actual !vote. TJRC (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  23:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. We are thankful to the kamikaze account who created and posted up this text, just as we're thankful to Mr Barth himself for supplying his photographic portrait. If only the text could be worthy of inclusion! It is not, due to our subject's notable lack of independent notability. We check the article and we search for sources but, alas, nothing of substance do we manage to scare up. All we catch are routine listings in trade media, such as this; online brochures, such as this; a bunch of expired links, e.g. here, here, here; and a few advertorials. And WP:NACADEMIC is spectacularly failed. -The Gnome (talk) 14:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. Does not pass WP:NPROF by any stretch of the imagination. An academic doing what academics do, but not notably. Qflib (talk) 19:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Our article lists two books coauthored by him, but I only found one published review of one of them . If both had multiple reviews, we would at least have a weak case for WP:AUTHOR (weak because both coauthored), but one review of one book is definitely not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with above editors. very weak news coverage. Perfectstrangerz (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2024 (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.