Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Maple
=[[Peter Maple]]=
:{{la|Peter Maple}} – (
:({{findsources|Peter Maple}})
This page was created and then edited repeatedly by a drawerful of socks, one claiming to be the subject. After much hard work by several editors (and special mention goes to {{user|Rees11}} who has done the hard legwork trying to improve and substantiate this article) we're left with an article whose sources are largely self-published or PR puff or not substantiating the points in the text. Because of that, the article doesn't pass WP:ACADEMIC and I seek community input as to whether it has a place in Wikipedia. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 09:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete — I've checked about half the references and none of the ones I looked at supported notability. Many of them don't even support the text in the article they are being used to reference. I did find one news story that mentions Maple, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/jan/30/charitymanagement.charityfinance Splashing out], but it quotes him on a different subject, and does not constitute substantial coverage. I don't believe the subject meets the notability criteria. Rees11 (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete -- there is indeed a bit of coverage of this person in the press, but no articles substantially about him. He certainly fails WP:PROF and I don't see anything close to sufficient for WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. This expert on post-modern marketing has not yet achieved notability in WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC).
- Delete The only claim to notability appears to be that subject is the Course Director at a university with the "largest cohort of charity students in the UK", and there is no independent analysis to show that that is notable. Many people work in the charity field and we should only have articles on those who satisfy WP:BIO – a level not achieved by this subject. Johnuniq (talk) 23:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - after many edits, subject still seems non-notable and the article still reads like a résumé. --CliffC (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - quite evident this person does not meet WP:PROF, and since the questionable nature of the many of the sources has been brought up, it leads me to endorse deleting this page. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:28, 3 January 2010 (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.