Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Daeschler

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 keep but cleanup. Cbrown1023 talk 17:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Daeschler

Ted Daeschler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This person seems to be somewhat notable, but they seem to be using this "article" merely as a way of posting their credentials on the internet. Should this person be deemed notable enough for a Wiki article, the current article needs to be completely revised (actually, sense no real article even exists here, an actual article will have to be written from scratch, including in it the claims that the current entry advertises, which, of course must be verified). I feel like a tourist (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep The article is new and may be currently worked on. The subject seems notable, but I agree it looks just like a CV. I would say add a tag that says the article is in the process of being rewritten. 65.11.23.219 (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but re-write there's evidence he's notable. It needs clean-up, not deletion _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice. Wikipedia is not a resumé directory. Stifle (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's actually amusing how careless the nomination is--the very first hit in Google is his official website at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, where he holds the position of associate Curator and head of Vertebrate biology----and the entire article is copied from that, & could actually have been deleted as copyvio (but wait). The nom obviously never even looked in google for this one, or made an other attempt to verify anything. for that matter, he didn't notify the author, or the other ed. working on the article. He did put on quite a variety of tags, relevant and less relevant. Well, it can't be deleted as copyvio now, for I wrote a brief article from the sources in google and that Cari found in GNews. He is an extremely distinguished paleontologist, with much public interest in his work, as shown by multi media appearances and references in RSs. It's not uncommon for academic biographies to be overmodest and insufficient. DGG (talk) 01:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - appears to pass WP:BIO and WP:PROF, I see nothing in WP:NOT that would lead to deletion. the article could use some work but that is no reason to delete. --Captain-tucker (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2008 (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.