Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Sasse

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. Geschichte (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Sasse

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Questionable coverage found. Originally created by a user that has been banned for paid editing and sockpuppeting. Nominating rather than PRODing because he has been published and since I'm not familiar with the field, I'm asking other editors to see if he passes WP:ACADEMIC. BriefEdits (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. BriefEdits (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when a source is "local x's book does y" you are heavily dealing with the type of local inserest stories that do not show notability. We should also do all we can to avoid Wikipedia turning into Who's Who, which means ridding it of articles created for pay from the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the original heavily-promotional wording has been trimmed back, this still appears to have no purpose other than promotion. We have no evidence of academic, author, or general notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources fail GNG, most just link to self-published material or the the individuals book itself. Only one appears to be independent, but probably lacks notability due to just being a local paper. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Leaning delete, simply seems to be a long-time bariatric surgeon. I get one or two hits in GScholar that could be him, first initial matches. The paid creation/sockpupuet doesn't help with the notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2022 (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.