Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyle Roebuck

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lyle Roebuck

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lack of sources confirming notability Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator: PROD removed. Most Ghits are social media, others merely confirm he was an award finalist (which does not establish notability). Does not appear to pass either WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. Jonathanwallace (talk) 10:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CREATIVE and as mentioned even though he has been nominated for an award this doesn't make him notable, even if is a prestigious one. Moreover, also fails WP:ACADEMIC so it seems open and shut.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find reliable sources that discuss this person in depth. He doesn't meet our notability guidelines as either an author or an academic. Cullen328 (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Cullen. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Roebuck seems to have spent plenty of energy creating and maintaining this page, and the expectation that the page cite WP:RS to show that his works have "been the subject...of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" has been pointed out for plenty of time. Yet there has still been no convincing effort to bring those articles or reviews. If the article is recreated with those multiple indep. articles and reviews cited, I will support its retention against any opponents; meanwhile I !vote delete. Wareh (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article seems to be not much more than a recitation of awards that the subject didn't win (but claims he was a "finalist" for). Article claims he is a writer, but he seems to be a high-school teacher at Elgin Academy. Moreover, I can't actually find anything he's written. For example, WorldCat does not seem to be aware of 'Ovid's Heroides with Notes and Vocabulary' (so that's probably "self published") and WoS shows no scholarly contributions. Article was created by now-blocked-WP:SPA Uofcboi and has been heavily serviced by WP:SPA Ltroebuck and several anons like this one, all of which Geolocate shows to be in the same locality as Roebuck. Consequently, it's likely that this is little more than a vanity or fan page. Uncontroversial delete. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: When I came upon this article, I was unsure if Mr. Roebuck was notable enough so I decided to completely research his career before I made up my mind. I have therefore sourced all the information I could find, deleted all unsourced assertions and adjusted any claims according to sources found (per WP:BLP). Even after all that research and adding six references, I am adding my comment for deletion. In my opinion Mr. Roebuck does not fulfill the Notability parameters of WP:AUTHOR. One reason is that at least one of his works of fiction, The Crab, has been submitted multiple times to various contests:

1) Finalist in the 2007 H.E. Francis Award (University of Alabama/Huntsville),

2) Winning the 2010 James Knudsen Contest(University of New Orleans) and

3) Finalist in the William Van Dyke Short Story Prize (Ruminate Magazine).

I would like to add, however, that his version of Ovid's Heroides I is still being sold by the Classical Association of New England. Shearonink (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, when I saw you adding references (thanks for the further research!) I figured perhaps you were going to argue to keep. But indeed, these are web pages that name him, no more - there is no actual discussion of him, so with all these web links we have still not found him the "subject of" (WP:AUTHOR) even one review in an unreliable source, not to mention the multiple reliable articles needed. P.S. On the status of CANE publications, see what I say at Talk:Lyle Roebuck; I am familiar with these publications (use them myself but would not confuse such student-aid pamphlets for an ordinary scholarly publication). Wareh (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2011 (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.