Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Kofman

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. Tim Song (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Kofman[edit]

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

Delete. Improved references requested about a year ago but that isn't likely to ever happen. The subject is quite frankly not all that notable. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all you need to do is click on the news link, listed above, looks like this: "(Find sources: "Jeffrey Kofman" – news · books · scholar · images)". Invalid nom, did not follow afd process. riffic (talk) 08:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reads more like a CV than an encyclopedia article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephencdickson (talk • contribs) 12:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

because an article looks like crap right now does not mean this is a valid reason to delete. AFD doesn't care about what the article is, but what it might potentially be. An article should be assessed based on whether it has a realistic potential for expansion, not how frequently it has been edited to date. riffic (talk) 21:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - past precedent at deletion discussions has been to keep articles about major journalists, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Williams (journalist). Bearian (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Williams was kept because there was plenty of secondary sourcing on him. Abductive (reasoning) 01:30, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs a lot of editing, but there are plenty of sources (currently available although not in the article). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 12:51, 21 May 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.