Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Biro

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. Daniel (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David Biro

[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)

Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMICS. Couldn't find google results to establish notability (all results seem to point to a convicted murderer by the same name, or a sculptor from Cleveland). All references are works created by the author.

Additionally, page creator is a single-purpose account and the page was promoted from AfC by a confirmed sock. Deadbeef 17:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Deadbeef 17:33, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:NAUTHOR looks plausible. Reviews include [1][2][3][4]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:GNG, NAUTHOR, and WP:NOTINHERITED. I don't see what he has done is especially notable as an academic; we rarely keep associate professors. It might be a reason to keep because his books have been reviewed. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. I've found several more reviews. [5][6][7][8] His 100 days book is better reviewed than his others, but I think the reviews are spread out enough to support a solid keep case (rather than redirect to the book). The article here needs a good reworking, but I don't think it's so bad as for WP:TNT. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:43, 6 February 2021 (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.