Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Hallbom (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. No consensus about this group of persons. Individual instead of group nominations would be more appropriate here. Sandstein 07:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hallbom

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

... and this lot again:

Removed

... from this AFD as per the discussion below. Famous _dog (c) 19:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so i realise my stupid mistake in nominating these NLP authors for deletion alongside the other disparate NLP stubs in the previous debate. That clearly caused it to be closed as no consensus ... Let me start again: I think these non-notable WP:AUTHORS need some independent, third-party WP:RSs to support their WP:BLPs or they should be deleted forthwith. They are currently only supported by links to their own websites and/or the websites of their collaborators, creating both a WP:WALLEDGARDEN and multiple WP:COIs. The only possible exception I can see is Fazal Inayat-Khan, but his page involves rampant peacockery of the first order. Famous _dog (c) 12:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Famous _dog (c) 13:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Famous _dog (c) 13:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. This is the third joint nomination Famousdog has brought in this area. The second was closed no consensus (and I think the first ought to have been closed that way too), in part because of the difficulty of finding sources and judging notability when so many articles are brought at once. Of the current list, I've looked at Stephen Gilligan and he seems notable enough for an entry. If there are minor NLP issues that have stand-alone articles, they can be merged if appropriate without bringing them to AfD. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When I Google Stephen Gilligan all I get are his websites and WP:PROMOTIONAL NLP websites. Please add any independent RSs to the relevant articles to establish notability and I will happily remove the appropriate pages from this AFD. Famous _dog (c) 19:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Famous _dog (c) 19:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added secondary sources to that article on 22 June, during the first AfD. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tim Hallbom. The only substantial coverage I can find on him is an article from Sommelier Journal[1] which might be a reliable source but is a bit frothy. Aside from that there's a few mentions in books but nothing substantial. No comment on the rest yet - it's hard with these bulk deletions where the notability of each person must be separately determined. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Stephen Gilligan The existing refs on the article were generally crappy (a paragraph in Techniques In Adlerian Psychology is not enough to prove notability though the Edge magazine article is ok I think; I've not read Room for Change but the page refs indicate he's mentioned more than once). However I've found a review of one of his books and another of a book he edited in academic journals.[2][3] Google Scholar also shows a few highly-cited papers by him. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding Stephen Gilligan, the article as it currently stands does a poor job of showing him to be anything other than a minor academic. Two of the sources are self-published, one (the NLP academy) is promotional and it should be pointed out that several of the mentions of "Gilligan" in Techniques in Adlerian Psychology are to a different Gilligan. There are indeed some highly cited articles on Google Scholar and it is likely that this is the same Stephen Gilligan (however, I know two Steve Dakins that both work in the field of visual psychophysics, hardly the most common name in hardly the most prominent field, so I am always careful to not make the assumption that we are talking about the same person). As such the article fails miserably to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Lots of citations doesn't necessarily make you a significant figure. The best way to attract citations is to cite yourself lots or get something spectacularly wrong. Famous _dog (c) 09:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Connirae Andreas. No reliable sources on article or showing up in Google. All her books are published by Real People Press which she co-owns, and nobody seems to review them. No evidence of notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to summarise, although some interesting points have been raised, I haven't seen any arguments here, or changes to the articles, that dissuade me from my opinion that we should delete all. Famous _dog (c) 09:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would probably be easier to solve if the articles were nominated individually. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per Slimvirgin. I suspect some of these do deserve deletion, but its too much to research in one AFD. Individual AFD's make more sense, so the discussions are more thorough. For the record, i created the article on Real People Press, which was in the previous group AFD, which i missed. I have no connection to NLP, aside from selling their titles in the past at a book wholesaler (NOT commissioned sales work).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's "too much to research"? Are you serious? That's basically just saying "I can't be bothered to find some RSs"! Okay, to try and bring this to a close, how about I remove Stephen Gilligan and Fazal Inayat-Khan? So far those are the only articles that anybody has even attempted to defend! Famous _dog (c) 19:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.