Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Patinkin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --Coredesat 07:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seth Patinkin

Seth Patinkin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable self-bio. Wrote a couple of non-notable papers, was involved in a couple of non-notable startup companies, was mentioned in a school newsletter, sued a local politician. The bulk of the article is unsourced. Deprodded by anon. Weregerbil 19:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete - autobiography, WP:COATRACK article. Author already has created an attack page several times against the mayor of his city, whom he is currently suing. The Evil Spartan 20:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom & ↑. Did someone say "non-notable". --Evb-wiki 21:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per all above. - TexMurphy 22:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Edit I think the connection with John Forbes Nash is interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.96.125 (talk) 22:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Add Information what is this guy's connection with Mandy Patinkin? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.96.125 (talk)
  • Some Citations Here are some more citations re: this subject:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.10.243 (talk)

  • Note that users 75.146.96.125 and 24.136.10.243 has no contributions outside this subject. - TexMurphy 11:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete A vanity page if there ever was one. Not every Princeton graduate student who works with Nash thereby becomes notable. Nor does one get notability by filing patents or helping found companies, unless they become notable, which is certainly not shown here. Nor by writing papers asserted to be celebrated but, according to Web of Science, cited by nobody at all. Perhaps the lawsuit is important, but he isnt necessarily important for filing it. DGG (talk) 00:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - See arguments for deletion above. Dragonmage65 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonmage65 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 13 September 2007 (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.