The result was delete. BJ Talk 21:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Independent sources about the subject are generally lacking. Horrid vanity tone, but in any case seems like self-promotion of a non-notable individual than something we should fix through editing. Biruitorul Talk 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply
I take it that the nominator is raising a COI concern in pointing to the "vanity tone." On that point, Davis is a professor at the University of Tampa, and the lion's share of the edits (see [1]) are from an IP address in Tampa ( [2]). Moreover, the user account that created the article (and the only other contributor) is an WP:SPA. Neither of these prove violation of WP:AB, but it raises the inference.
A COI violation doesn't require deletion, of course, but lack of notability generally does. See WP:FAILN. None of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC appear to apply; that leaves WP:BIO, but the article fares little better on that front. It cites no secondary source material ("reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" or otherwise) that has Davis as its subject. A google search doesn't turn up much, and although I've hardly combed the desert, my view is that WP:BURDEN places the onus on the article's creator and lead editors to demonstrate notability.
For all that, however, I think this nomination is unfortunate. The article has existed for barely a month, and there is at least a colorable claim that Davis could be notable. A better approach might have been to cut the article down to size and add the {{ notability}} tag, as WP:FAILN suggests.
Nevertheless, we have a nomination. Given the COI problems and the apparent lack of notability, I lean towards and will support deletion. I would prefer, however, that the nomination be withdrawn, and the approach noted above be tried for a reasonable period -- say, a month. If the nominator will withdraw, I'm willing to make those changes and take responsibility for relisting. If we do that and no reliable sources have been added in a month (if we are correct that this is a WP:AB, Davis will of course have very strong incentive to find such sources), I would fully support renomination. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 15:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply
The result was delete. BJ Talk 21:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply
Independent sources about the subject are generally lacking. Horrid vanity tone, but in any case seems like self-promotion of a non-notable individual than something we should fix through editing. Biruitorul Talk 18:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply
I take it that the nominator is raising a COI concern in pointing to the "vanity tone." On that point, Davis is a professor at the University of Tampa, and the lion's share of the edits (see [1]) are from an IP address in Tampa ( [2]). Moreover, the user account that created the article (and the only other contributor) is an WP:SPA. Neither of these prove violation of WP:AB, but it raises the inference.
A COI violation doesn't require deletion, of course, but lack of notability generally does. See WP:FAILN. None of the criteria in WP:ACADEMIC appear to apply; that leaves WP:BIO, but the article fares little better on that front. It cites no secondary source material ("reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" or otherwise) that has Davis as its subject. A google search doesn't turn up much, and although I've hardly combed the desert, my view is that WP:BURDEN places the onus on the article's creator and lead editors to demonstrate notability.
For all that, however, I think this nomination is unfortunate. The article has existed for barely a month, and there is at least a colorable claim that Davis could be notable. A better approach might have been to cut the article down to size and add the {{ notability}} tag, as WP:FAILN suggests.
Nevertheless, we have a nomination. Given the COI problems and the apparent lack of notability, I lean towards and will support deletion. I would prefer, however, that the nomination be withdrawn, and the approach noted above be tried for a reasonable period -- say, a month. If the nominator will withdraw, I'm willing to make those changes and take responsibility for relisting. If we do that and no reliable sources have been added in a month (if we are correct that this is a WP:AB, Davis will of course have very strong incentive to find such sources), I would fully support renomination. - Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 15:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply