Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Winberry

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--Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Winberry

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

Looks like a nice school project. Numerous people on the talk page contesting speedy deletion. Aside from that nonsense, the page fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF JakenBox (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to suggest he is in any way notable. Seems like a joke: "Rumors have it that he will win a Nobel Prize in economics." - Headwes (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG and low bar for professors. A young instructor, it would seem. Certainly not adverse to a restart of the piece if that Nobel Prize in Economics materializes, but let's politely call that WP:CRYSTAL for now. Carrite (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Perhaps just a teenie weenie bit too soon... --Randykitty (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reads like a subtle attack page written out of malice. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in the citation record or elsewhere that can be used to support a pass of WP:PROF yet. I removed some problematic material from the article so that it at least doesn't look like a joke at his expense. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no credible claim of notability, nor any evidence of the reliable and verifiable sources that would be needed to establish that claim. Alansohn (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- sounds like a beloved TA getting support from his students. See you in 10 years! -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2014 (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.