Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Hugo Sporleder

James Hugo Sporleder

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

James Hugo Sporleder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

WP:BLP of an activist, not properly sourced as passing our notability criteria for activists. The notability claim here is that he was involved in a group, but the potential notability of the group is not necessarily an instant notability freebie for every individual member of it -- in order to establish him as notable, there have to be reliable sources about him and his work. But there are none here, and the article was created by an editor whose username strongly suggests that they're a relative of the subject (which is a conflict of interest). As I don't have access to any database in which I could recover American newspaper coverage from the 1960s, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better resources can actually improve the sourcing, but nothing stated in the text is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have his notability established through media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment - undecided on whether these are enough to establish notability, but some clippings. There's honestly not much more that's significant. [1] [2][3] [4] [5] Urve (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Not convinced, even with Urve's due diligence. I could not even find a single mention of the subject worth noting on Jstor, etc. Missvain (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)