Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor van Mierlo


 * 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.  Sandstein  19:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Trevor van Mierlo

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:BASIC with no secondary sources, just four papers by Mierlo, a WP:NEWSPRIMARY interview in a student newspaper and two website directory profile pages. I can't find any press coverage of him.

A notability prod yesterday was removed by new user User:Sriracha310 in their first edit, with the unclear statement that "According to Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, Trevor van Mierlo meets requirements. We are his peers and will be enhancing this page over time." McGeddon (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Delete: This article is, it seems, written by an editor close to the subject -- note editor TOHB2016's history: . Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Sriracha310: by "peer" I was referring to fellow academic subject matter expert. The notability guidelines are clear that "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." Would it help to include mention of van Mierlo's 32 peer-reviewed published articles and 538 citations?Sriracha310 (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * , are you the same user as  and/or   and/or other users? Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Sriracha310: Isambard Kingdom to reply to your question, no I am not. Would you agree that according to academic notably guidelites referenced above, if the other 32 academic publications and 538 citations are included the issue would be resolved? —Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Sriracha310, I'm curious as to what other editors think about the notability of the subject of this article. Note, I did not nominate the article for deletion, though I support deletion. I'm concerned about WP:SPIP, WP:SPA, and WP:COI. I also note that your edit history is remarkably similar to those of and . Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

TOHB2016 (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC) Bill Cherowitzo Secondary sources, awards, interviews added - I am new to this process, the rules are confusing, and seem to push toward promotion rather than focusing on subject matter expertise. I feel a bit strange adding all the required info; not really the best focus of my time. Isambard Kingdom This article was initially created due to the high number of citations from a specific publication in The 1% rule which was originally added by EHS2014pub in Feb 2014 (according to NIH the article has reached 57 citations), the increased interest in the subject, and other issues. For reference / COI questions I am in the digital health academic community. When the 1% entry was linked to this article (as internal links seem to be a requirement / a pop-up message once the article is created) it appears that you deleted The 1% rule entry in entirety for possible COI. When the section was put back up with the COI link to this article removed (so, no COI but academic reference/footnote included) you once again deleted it - even though that content has been up for well over 2 years and have served the community well. I appreciate the hard work done, but the rules here are a bit murky and I now find myself searching for and posting info that is beyond my core competency (I am not a biographer or a blogger or a writer). So, I will now disengage with this process and leave the work to you folks who seem to know what they are doing. Although we don't allow students to reference Wikipedia I certainly have more appreciation for the quality of information, so your work is appreciated.
 * Delete. I initially PRODed the article for the same concerns that has mentioned. I could not determine from the article what the basis for notability would be, and the PROD was also meant to elicit this information. Now that I see the response, it is clear to me that the notability guidelines of WP:SCHOLAR are not met. The number of academic publications has no import, it is their influence, as described in secondary sources, awards given and honors obtained that matter. The statement quoted above from this guideline is a misdirection, secondary sources are necessary for establishing notability, it is just not necessary that a biography appears in a secondary source. --Bill Cherowitzo  (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Impact not yet apparent WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC).


 * (WP:BLP violation deleted by administrator,  Sandstein   19:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC))
 * Please note that the article will be kept or deleted based on Wikipedia policy about notability and reliable sourcing, not based on anybody's personal opinion about what a "self indulgent pig" he might be. Wikipedia articles are not kept or deleted based on whether the subject is a nice person or not — lots of notable people weren't very "nice" in their private lives, and lots of nice guys aren't notable. It will be kept or deleted based on whether it can be made compliant with Wikipedia's inclusion rules or not, and nothing else. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2016 (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.