Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Schriver

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. The "keep" arguments amount to WP:WAX, sorry. Sandstein 05:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Schriver

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

Not notable according to Wiki policy; most articles come from subjects website Theseus1776 (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient evidence of non-inherited notability in Google/Gnews searches. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Two references to his name appearing in lists and two passing mentions in articles would normally not be sufficient for an individual to pass WP:GNG. Claims of notability hinge on his position as chair of the College Republicans, but WP:POLITICIAN does not grant that position de facto notability. Location (talk) 02:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)edited 17:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The chairmanship of the College Republicans is a very notable political position within the US Republican Party. I think the creators can find more outside sources to expand the article and explain some of Mr. Shriver's important actions as an activist and organizational leader. Academic Challenger (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This argument does not warrant an article on Wikipedia. Subject must have multiple citations to be considered notable according to Wikipedia's notability policy.Theseus1776 (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.: This article falls in line with previous National Chairman of the College Republicans who also have had biographical articles. I also suggest the authors add more newsworthy sources and notations

User:JoshTHallmark (talk) 20:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. User:JoshTHallmark is correct; all the other non-entities who have held that office have entries, surely there's room for one more. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is "NO" reason to keep this article. Authors have provided no new articles, and article does not meet notability guidelines.Theseus1776 (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment - The strongest arguments seem to be to delete, but there's not been a great deal of discussion. I'm giving those who want it kept a chance to produce reliable sources and/or other strong arguments based on Wikipedia policy. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage (as oopposed to passing mentions) needed to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2012 (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.