Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nathaniel Dunigan

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 merge to Aidchild. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Dunigan

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

This article is written primarily self promotive, reads like an autobiography of the guy's life history, mixed with pieces of his resumé for perusal. A previous attempt to PROD this was countered by the author, who removed the prod template, - i was advised that the other route I should take would be AFD. The article is wholly self promotional and contains a lot of vanity language, which makes it in my opinion, unsuitable. MarkBurberry32 talk 20:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aidchild. I found a few references,[1][2][3] but they all mention Dunigan in the context of Aidchild, so I think on balance he doesn't pass the basic criteria of our notability guidelines for biographies. Also, his fellowships and awards don't look like the kind of thing we would need to prove notability, and I can't see any other reason he would pass the notability guidelines for academics. If we choose to merge, though, we should be careful, as I suspect (but can't confirm) that the text of the article was copied from one of the links in this Google search. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Aidchild. Mr. Stradivarius found some interesting references, but is completely correct in his interpretation of those. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After rewriting, the article is less promotional. The Anderson and Vanderson citations could be taken as indicating notability per WP:BIO, but it is a marginal case. The best outcome is probably merge and redirect to Aidchild. – Fayenatic L (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the changes in format that have been made. I believe the additional notability issues have also been addressed. Can we please delete the discussion of deletion? --Ndunigan (talk) 11:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These things run for about a week. I don't think anybody else is satisfied re WP:NOTABILITY on any of the criteria at WP:ACADEMIC, WP:BASIC or WP:ANYBIO. Most of the info is still worth keeping as a new section of the article Aidchild headed "Nathaniel Dunigan". Also, the page Nathaniel Dunigan can be redirected there; that's what "merge and redirect" means. The page history would still be there and could be re-used if you become more notable in person, e.g. win a Nobel Peace Prize or your life story gets featured in the LA Times. Please don't take it personally; you sound a great guy, but Wikipedia has to be objective about your story so far! – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the clarification on what merger means. I think it makes sense. How do we do that? And I'm not offended. There have been multiple stories about me in papers like the Sacramento Bee, Tucson Citizen, New Vision (Kampala), and multiple awards, but not yet the Nobel or LA Times. Anyway, I still wouldn't mind having my kids first, and myself second. Has always been that way in fact. Cheers.--Ndunigan (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I see those at Google News, although they are pay-per-view, and no longer available at sacbee.com or http://www.newvision.co.ug. Anyway, let this discussion run its course; who knows, other editors might think the press coverage of your life is sufficient after all to justify keeping the separate article. – Fayenatic L (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. I don't see the coverage that would justify a standalone article at this point. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 26 April 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.