Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Crittenden

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. czar 18:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Crittenden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:BLP1E of a political aide, whose only stated claim of notability is that he wrote the first draft (but not the finished product) of a single piece of legislation. And he isn't the subject of the article's only source, either, but merely gives brief soundbite about a different piece of legislation than the one he worked on. It's not entirely impossible that Crittenden might have a stronger claim of notability and better sourceability than the creator actually attempted to show (it was created by Ottawahitech, a user who has been permanently editblocked for persistently doing the bare minimum needed to show that their choice of topics existed, rather than actually putting in enough work to demonstrate that the topics were notable) -- so I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access than I've got to US media coverage circa 1993 can put in the work to salvage it, but what's here isn't enough. Bearcat (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, tentatively. Editor Ottawahitech should not have been banned; they identified many notable topics and there is nothing wrong with starting stub articles. I added a bit to the article and see other sources available. --doncram 14:47, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ottawahitech did not correctly identify many notable topics; their habit was to create an article about absolutely anything and anyone who could be verified by one newspaper article as merely existing, without regard to Wikipedia's established standards of how much notability or sourcing need to be shown to justify an article. There's nothing inherently wrong with creating stubs, true, but even a short stub still has to actually contain a credible claim of notability in the first place. And so far, the only new sources you've added are primary ones, not reliable source coverage in media. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I have the impression that Robert Wood Johnson Fellows (now a redirect to a new section in Robert Wood Johnson Foundation) are a fairly big deal, but there's not much yet in Wikipedia about the program. Crittenden was one of those, and had other fellowships/awards not yet in the article. --doncram 18:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Few mentions in passing - not much of a political career. Granted, he was more of an aide/advisor, but those are simply not things that make one notable, not without in-depth coverage and that I don't see. However, it is worth pointing out that his full name was "Robert A. Crittenden", and the current informal "Bob" name may be obscuring some results. Bob is the name that we can see he is cited in the media on the few occasions he was asked for comment; Robert A. Crittenden / RA Crittenden is the name he used for his scientific works. Still, Google Scholar suggests his impact is low - he has been a co-author on a number of papers, but their citations are mid-20s at best, most of them got very few cites. As such, he does not seem to pass WP:PROF. I couldn't find any information on significant awards, or any recognition of him as a significant scholar/etc. I am afraid I have to agree with the nominator here.: this is not an encyclopedic person per sources we have so far. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete background aides only pass notability if we have reliable source coverage of them of a level to, and we lack that for Crittenden.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment With the above mentions of Ottawahitech I began to look into some of his contributions. I came across the article on Anne-Marie Ambert and was ready to nominate it for deletion. However I did some background research and realized she has written books like The Effect of Children on Parents that has over 300 listed citations on Google scholar. She is not notable for her condominium role, but she might be notable as an academic. I began editing the article to reflect this fact, but there is a need for more work to be done. The article has been tagged since August 2015 as needing better sourcing, so tagging articles in this matter is not working. These sub-standard article that focus on non-notable issues in possibly notable people's lives are a reason Ottawahitech was banned. At least 4 articles he created are in process of being prod deleted right now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Someone might want to have a look at Dave Brown (columnist), I doubt he is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2017 (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.