Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Thayer

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 of the debate was delete. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scott Thayer

Contested prod as nn-bio, vanity so bringing to AfD for fuller discussion. Google search of Scott Thayer CTO returns ~ 18 hits. [1]; Scott Thayer + Robotics produces about 500 [2] Eusebeus 15:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I observe that my nominations have been challenged as being in bad faith, so let me quickly respond here: while contesting a prod is an entirely appropriate and often beneficial action, AfD is a good place to debate the larger merits of articles where the prod itself makes at least a prima facie case, which is my criterion for moving these to AfD. (I have personally refrained from either voting or often even recommending a way to vote since editors can make up their own minds). Eusebeus 15:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep, bad faith nomination made without regard to the merits of the dispute. Supposed "prima facie case" for deletion was the unsupported boilerplate phrase "nn-bio, vanity", which can be attached to virtually any article; since the deprob referred to the subject's extremely extensive Google Scholar presence, and the nominator conspicuously avoids that point, an inference of bad faith from the available evidence is certainly valid. Monicasdude 15:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence Thayer meets WP:BIO criteria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isotope23 (talk • contribs)
  • Thanks for the sig by the way!--Isotope23 16:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I admit I know little about his field, but some fishing around suggests he's rather important in it [3], [4], [5] etc. Plenty of verifiable information to add to the article if anyone is interested. Meets my (admittedly liberal) interpretation of WP:BIO under "professionals whose work is widely recognized". Diverse news coverage is sufficient recognition, I see no compelling reason to delete. --W.marsh 16:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - article shows no sign of notability. --Ajdz 17:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Either Delete this or Expand it, there's practically not enough words to even try to assert notability. Kuzaar 18:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of notability. -- Kicking222 18:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WMarsh. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 21:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I see no evidence of notablity. Verifying anything other than the one or two sentances that currently exist would not be possible. -- JamesTeterenko 22:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Just an anonymous professional person. Golfcam 01:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as the article doesn't assert notability and sources. Being CTO of some company doesn't make the person notable in any way, unless the company is a) very large, or b) the CTO also has done something else to make him notable. Bjelleklang - talk 01:04, 28 April 2006 (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.