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 Speedy Deleted G7 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Nosta[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. Now, on the surface this looks nice. But if you look at the refs in more details, it falls apart - this is a professional vanity bio, authored by the WP:SPA User:NomiStature. Refs either mention him in passing, or are promotional, likely self-written or paid-for PR pieces. The "Shorty Interview"? Self-written SNS-like entry. The nuviun profile looks great, but nuviun itself seems to be a PR company, or some other form of marketing entity. Ditto for Cox Blue. The "Reuters" piece is a traditional PR tool, note the " Reuters is not responsible for the content in this press release." A bunch of other elinks sound "great" only to reveal short self-written profiles and such. I am not seeing any reliable, independent sources here, just a lot of PR hot air. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete I Looked at first 10 screens of google search and found no independent sources to reasonably establish notability. 00:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nice find, this is a good one. If I ever need a puff bio written, I would totally hire this user. Manages to make spending a year as a lab tech after undergrad, having famous high school classmates, and once giving a talk at a TEDxNowheresville almost sound like actual achievements. (Cleverly, the publications list is misformatted to include the institution, but not the author list, which would reveal Nosta was never even first author.) There is absolutely nothing here that constitutes a serious claim to notability. Just a big pile of self-publication and self-promotion. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So much for my attempt at article creation. It sounds from the comments that I am some type of infiltrator who came to Wikipedia to introduce spam. This I am not. However, I can see from the comments that the article is not up to par with the notability requirements. I read through them carefully, but obviously did not apply them correctly. I also read that I can request deletion of the article which I would like to do as I do not want anything on the site that can be taken as spammy. I will keep the article in my sandbox until I have a chance to work on it more. There are many references that you are all missing, including numerous books where he and his works are covered, but I can add that later when I have time. Sorry for wasting everyone’s time. --NomiStature (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NomiStature: My comments above sounded grumpy, but it is actually a well-written article; it's just that the subject seems not to meet the notability requirements as far as we can tell, and we get so much spam that people tend to be skeptical of this sort of thing. You can move or copy it back to your sandbox and request that the mainspace version be deleted by adding the ((db-author)) tag to it (but bear in mind that we don't indefinitely host content that won't be suitable for mainspace eventually). We have many missing biographical articles for people broadly involved in the medical field; maybe you'd like to try one of those? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NomiStature: I do apologize, if in fact you wrote this for a non-promotional reason. Unfortunately, your activity - creating a well-written, well-formatted article on a person of dubious notability - meets exactly all the features associated with a paid-for, spammy edits that are plaguing this project. If you want to show us that we mistakenly prejudged you, for which I'll again apologize in advance, I'd encourage you to do things that said spammers never do: improve content on topics that no spammer would work. Missing bio articles from the field of medicine that Opabinia regalis mentioned would be a good start, for example. Spellcheck an article. Heck, just upload a few images of your hometown/vacation spot/etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus:, @Opabinia regalis:, Thanks for the comments and no need to apologize. I can understand being suspicious but I actually thought it was a well-written, well-sourced article. I will pass on creating the additional pages for others. I created this one as I heard him speak recently and when I went to look him up in Wikipedia there was no article on him. I thought that to be strange based on the sources that I found talking about him and his work. Anyways, I requested the deletion and will hopefully have time to work on the article in the next couple of weeks, keeping the comments here in mind. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to dedicate to Wikipedia on a regular basis. If I am unable to get to it in the next couple of weeks, I will simply remove it from my sandbox and hopefully someone else can pick up the work. --NomiStature (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - think the comments about this user have been overly harsh, they've obviously tried hard. However, not enough really good reliable sources about them, seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Also, quite a bit of WP:PUFFERY. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only thing that looks close to a reliable in-depth source about the subject, of a type that would be needed to pass WP:GNG, is the Irish Times story. But that one only has two sentences that are actually about him (amid a larger number of quotes by him about other things) and it's only one source. I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO and lacks indepth references.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2015 (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.