- 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Steven Krivit
- Steven Krivit ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO, specifically the external links sourced do not rise to the standards we would require for a Wikipedia biography. jps ( talk) 11:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I didn't turn up much of anything myself. This is definitely in depth coverage, but the source appears to be a thinly veiled blog. I started randomly clicking through the EL's provided, and stopped at about half, when everything was either trivial mention, or did not mention the subject at all. TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe ( talk) 16:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. – Joe ( talk) 16:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe ( talk) 16:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Inadequate notability shown by this poorly written BLP. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC).
- Keep. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so apologies. I've cleaned up the external link format, if not OK let me know why not. I do think Notability is met, per WP:BIO, Biography, item 2: he's been active since 2000 in this field, and very well known there. If it should be moved to draft until correct, please let me know.
Manitech (
talk) 14:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for the contention that he's "well known" in whatever field you're claiming he's active in?
jps (
talk) 20:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please check current page (2017-01-02), I've started fleshing out the bio. Is this working towards notability?
Manitech (
talk) 12:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- While I appreciate your dedication, you still haven't really addressed the key issues which is that the person doesn't appear notable according to Wikipedia's standards. See WP:BIO. Evidence that he has a certain fame is important. Sources that discuss him as a person are necessary. jps ( talk) 14:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please check current page (2017-01-02), I've started fleshing out the bio. Is this working towards notability?
Manitech (
talk) 12:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for the contention that he's "well known" in whatever field you're claiming he's active in?
jps (
talk) 20:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Krivit and his publication New Energy Times are likely notable, but there need to be better sources. He recently published in Scientific American [1]. He was also editor-in-chief for the Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia [2]. These qualify under the WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR guidelines. If not kept in mainspace, it should at least be allowed to mature in draft or user space so that good sources can be added. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- The first is a "guest blog". The second does not rise to WP:NAUTHOR standards. Sorry. jps ( talk) 20:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I have no doubt that he's an important writer within the little niche he occupies, but the significance to the general public (and hence the independent sources) is just not there. - MrOllie ( talk) 14:44, 31 December 2016 (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.
- 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. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Steven Krivit
- Steven Krivit ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO, specifically the external links sourced do not rise to the standards we would require for a Wikipedia biography. jps ( talk) 11:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I didn't turn up much of anything myself. This is definitely in depth coverage, but the source appears to be a thinly veiled blog. I started randomly clicking through the EL's provided, and stopped at about half, when everything was either trivial mention, or did not mention the subject at all. TimothyJosephWood 15:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe ( talk) 16:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. – Joe ( talk) 16:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. – Joe ( talk) 16:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Inadequate notability shown by this poorly written BLP. Xxanthippe ( talk) 00:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC).
- Keep. I'm new to Wikipedia editing, so apologies. I've cleaned up the external link format, if not OK let me know why not. I do think Notability is met, per WP:BIO, Biography, item 2: he's been active since 2000 in this field, and very well known there. If it should be moved to draft until correct, please let me know.
Manitech (
talk) 14:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for the contention that he's "well known" in whatever field you're claiming he's active in?
jps (
talk) 20:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please check current page (2017-01-02), I've started fleshing out the bio. Is this working towards notability?
Manitech (
talk) 12:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- While I appreciate your dedication, you still haven't really addressed the key issues which is that the person doesn't appear notable according to Wikipedia's standards. See WP:BIO. Evidence that he has a certain fame is important. Sources that discuss him as a person are necessary. jps ( talk) 14:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please check current page (2017-01-02), I've started fleshing out the bio. Is this working towards notability?
Manitech (
talk) 12:29, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Do you have a source for the contention that he's "well known" in whatever field you're claiming he's active in?
jps (
talk) 20:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Krivit and his publication New Energy Times are likely notable, but there need to be better sources. He recently published in Scientific American [1]. He was also editor-in-chief for the Wiley Nuclear Energy Encyclopedia [2]. These qualify under the WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR guidelines. If not kept in mainspace, it should at least be allowed to mature in draft or user space so that good sources can be added. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- The first is a "guest blog". The second does not rise to WP:NAUTHOR standards. Sorry. jps ( talk) 20:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. I have no doubt that he's an important writer within the little niche he occupies, but the significance to the general public (and hence the independent sources) is just not there. - MrOllie ( talk) 14:44, 31 December 2016 (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.