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 merge to DigiPen Institute of Technology. Selectively. Sandstein 17:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Comair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This article was written primarily by Supadude888, who has edited primarily this article and the DigiPen Institute of Technology, the organisation ran by the subject of this article (their only other edits appear to be on the subject of mountain climbing); and the anonymous ip 198.244.110.191 (a Seattle area IP address) who has also only edited DigiPen, Claude Comair & mounting climbing articles, and so is likely just Supadude logged out. I don't want to go all Sherlock here but Supadude is also the contributor of the picture of Claude, which he uploaded as 'own work', so its extremely likely Supadude is Comair or works for Comair.

The article almost exclusively references DigiPen's own website, the website of DigiPen's research arm, a MobyGames page (which is a user generated wiki and fails the definition of a reliable source), as well as a very brief mention in an article from 2013 about Nintendo Software Technology. The BBC article referenced is nothing to do with him, but a timeline of Lebanese history.

A Google News search turns up very few results (an article on his son where he is mentioned in passing, an article collating covid PR releases from Seattle area businesses, and an Ars Technica article which is just quoting him once).

The article falls back on listing patents, which as WP:PATENTS notes is a fairly common way to puff up a self promotional article.

Therefore I generally see that it fails the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability. JT_dale^Talk~ 02:49, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Oh boy, this is a tough one. He seems notable but the sources used are garbage. We'd need to strip this article down and start over again. Oaktree b (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:46, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment He is not going to pass academic notability, I am not thinking the institution he is over fits the "significant" and "accredited" terms that need to be met to make an academic leader notable. However, if he gets enough indepdent coverage he may be notable. We seem not to have much here, but sometimes that happens because people go for low hanging easy self references, instead of digging up 3rd party coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The google books are turning up some mentions such as this [1] which appears to be an indepdent source, I am not sure how it works on reliable. It is also more about the place he heads and its opening a new campus.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to DigiPen Institute of Technology. A look at the google books search sources suggests to me there are multiple references to his institution. Although the one that changed my mind was this [2] which is a test prep quesiton name dropping him and his institution. I am not sure that is a GNG building source at all. Still, the one I listed above is a slightly better reference, but more on the institution than Comair. Overall I think merger is the best way forward.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – The Grid (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In the absence of other good solutions, merge and rd what's salvageable (not much, if any) to DigiPen. This is a pretty obvious puff/selfpromo piece so it's hard to see through it to the potential notability underneath. There's a lot of corporate fluff too at the DigiPen article, to be clear. At any rate, any future independent article for Comair will have to start from scratch. There's too much taint and self-promo in this one. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2021 (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.