Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Richmond

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Richmond

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

Promotional article, likely autobiography. This was previously deleted after I prodded what was basically a resume[1]. It's back, rewritten but still uncited and advertorial -- surprise surprise! ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Does not meet WP:BIO standards. I agree with Anetode - it is basically a resume. Not to mention there are no sources cited and the revision history indicates that the entire article was written by an individual behind an anon IP address (I'd bet money it was Todd Richmond). Nice try, Todd. Chrisbrl88 (talk) 11:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's a lot of poorly-sourced personal detail in the article, but almost none of it conveys any notability. The article conveys the impression that he was one of the primary contributors to the book "Networked Publics" but, although he was a contributor, it is only as one of four co-authors of one of four chapters; only Varnelis' name appears on the cover. So that doesn't work either. With no evidence of passing WP:PROF nor WP:GNG, and no reliably-published third-party sources to verify the details of our article, we should delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am in agreement with David Eppstein and Chrisbel88. This reads like a resume/vanity article, with no referencing. Most likely an autobiography. Notability has not been established. Evalpor (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the place to host his Curriculum Vitae. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:53, 24 May 2010 (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.