Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerry E. Smith (2nd nomination)

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry E. Smith

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

An author with no significant, in-depth coverage. Neutrality^talk 06:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 06:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an interesting dude with books on fringe topics but he and his work have not been covered by reliable independent sources. FloridaArmy (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR, no independent sources show notability outside of the fringe bubble. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need actual third party relible sources, especially on a conspiracy nut like Smith, and that is entirely lacking from this article. The fact that this article was kept back in 2005 shows how insanely inclusionist Wikipedia was back then, and is the legacy of lack of any even remote aspirations to being vaguely scholarly that continues to hurt the project to the present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My initial searches turn up nothing useful; admittedly I might have searched harder if there was an indication of likely notability. Feel free to flag me to reconsider if anyone can bring WP:RS and wants to argue for keeping.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2018 (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.