Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Bezanson

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. While on a pure nose count this could be "no consensus", the keep arguments do not generally address the claims of lack of sourcing, or just point to web searches rather than particular in-depth references. Given this, the "delete" arguments are substantially stronger and more policy-based. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Bezanson

Keith Bezanson (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. No significant coverage to meet

WP:BIO. Tagged for notability concerns for 10 years. LibStar (talk) 10:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

I say fair comment, when an editor takes deletionism to such an extreme. It seems you have not yet hit the links for references at JSTOR and Google books. Moonraker (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MUSTBESOURCES. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:50, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Unsourced BLP. : BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth.
The keep club hasn't supplied sources or arguments based in policy and guidelines, so the only response is an offer of cheese for the whine.
BLPs need clearly IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth for both content and notability to avoid abuse per well known core policy (
WP:SIGCOV).  // Timothy :: talk  12:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shawn Teller (he/her) (talk) 16:55, 1 April 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.