Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junius P. Rodriguez

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. Sandstein 07:04, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Junius P. Rodriguez[edit]

Based on history of the edits, this appears to be a self-biography (WP:BIO) by User:Mj0514dr also connecting as Special:Contributions/198.88.216.101. Some of the material may support notability. However, no reliable sources are cited (the article needs substantial modification to justify retaining it). Tedickey (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: For now. Needs sources (I've tagged it) and cleanup / expansion, and was just recently created. Give it some time to come up to par, but it is acceptable as a stub (assuming sources are found asap). - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems to have a reasonable amount of popular press: [1] [2]. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe - there's material there to develop (and weed through - perhaps one does a reasonable job of analysis/criticism, though sadly insightful reviewers are rare). Searching just on the author's name, it seemed that I was mostly seeing advertisements for the books - a few reviews scattered around. However, this page came to my notice since its editor added several entries to other articles reference list. Further reading lists are one matter, but references are the data used to build the article. There are other book-advertisers in the same category. Tedickey (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Look ok for now. But I would suggest deletion if it is not improved. Chris! _ct 02:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Editor of several major reference books by notable specialist publisher. Since there are apparently reviews, that's enough for notability. DGG (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reviews - as User:Mj0514dr continues editing, he's only supplied pointers to advertising material - no reviews cited, independent or otherwise (yet) Tedickey (talk) 11:00, 26 November 2007 (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.