Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Heilbrunn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 06:33, 6 February 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 06:33, 6 February 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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 keep. Though, the sourcing does need an upgrade. Courcelles (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jacob Heilbrunn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
BLP that relies entirely on primary sources Stonemason89 (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep No valid reason for deletion has been given. Gbooks, Gnews, and Gscholar show plenty of independent sources exist. Edward321 (talk) 15:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as an editor and writer. Again, most of the Ghits are things he has written, rather than independent sourcing ABOUT him, but there are enough other writers quoting him and talking about his opinions that he qualifies as notable. Some sources need to be added to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep serious published writer. TFD (talk) 07:14, 17 June 2010 (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.