Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David E. Smith

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David E. Smith

[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)

This article is almost entirely uncited and does not meet BLP. The subject also does not meet WP:NBIO because they do not inherit notability from being associated with the Haight Ashbury Free Clinics. Ew3234 (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ew3234 (talk) 02:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 04:31, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Entirely uncited, the only source is a self-source. I did a quick search on the internet and there are nofew reliable sources about this person. There is a David Smith at the University of Michigan, who has a named professor appointment at the university, but it is unlikely to be the same person. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 07:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A little more elaboration here. I am certain that David E Smith has published books, and that he is an adjunct prof at UCSF [1], but neither amounts to good notability. Maybe this article from the San Francisco Chronicle and this report from the UC system could establish some notability? He also got a NYTimes mention by the book he co-authored (see here). I think if someone works to rework this article, I can imagine it getting kept, but at this point I still would !vote weak delete. --TheLonelyPather (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2023 (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.