Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Mark Carpenter

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Mark Carpenter

[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)

Résumé-like biography of an academic and filmmaker, not properly sourced as passing notability criteria for academics or fimmakers. This has a decidedly advertorialized writing tone, and is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, with not a shred of real WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him in real media shown at all. As always, Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN — the key to getting a Wikipedia article is not to write it in a résumé-like tone that resembles the subject writing about himself, but to show that he's been a subject of coverage and analysis by third parties. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Does not meet notability based on lack of citations. he also doesn't have many academic citations in Google Scholar.Hkkingg (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanispamcruftisement. The books listed under "Selected Works" were all self-published and have not been significant or influential in any documentable way. The 48 Laws of Happiness has a review on Kirkus, but it's Kirkus Indie, which doesn't count. This would be a case where WP:AUTHOR is more indicative than WP:PROF (i.e., low citation counts would be beside the point), but WP:AUTHOR isn't met either. And the prose needs to die in a fire. XOR'easter (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person. Fails WP:GNG.Seaweed (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The heavily promotional writing could plausibly be cleaned up, but without reliably-published reviews of his books we have no pass of WP:AUTHOR, nor any evidence of other notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG, and meets neither WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 22:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and because it's just too soon. His only award had been that of a "40 under 40" type. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devoke water 17:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:42, 13 May 2023 (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.