Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Turk

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Turk

Fails notability for biographies since June 2007. It was prodded for deletion in June 2007 but it was declined. No improvement happened since that day. None edited this article in 2008. Magioladitis (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite claims from last year about the references meaning the person meets notability they actually fail to discuss the subject in any significant details. Article at present clearly fails not a C.V. If the article's subject is found to be important/significant enough for inclusion and that importance/significance can be verified by those more experienced than I than may I suggest a complete rewrite from a neutral point of view would be the place to start. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't let the "references" fool you. WP:BIO requires "significant coverage" in sources, and being quoted once or twice, far down in a article that has something completely different as its subject, does not qualify as significant coverage. Nor does writing a letter to the editor. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others due to the obvious lack of non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources. JBsupreme (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:PROF and perhaps WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO. For Prof #6 (or #4) because of his position in CAUT, exclusive of his scholarly output (haven't really looked at it). Politician (sort of) because of having been president of the Ontario NDP. Jim Turk caut gets 20 gnews hits after 1999, including this interview from The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology.John Z (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom and lack of reliable sources. Beano (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources, and there is nothing in the article now that isn't cited or visible in the sources cited.John Z (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 04:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep major publications, notable administrative position. DGG (talk)

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.