Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis E. Hollander Jr.

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. ✗plicit 23:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis E. Hollander Jr.[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

PROD was rejected, so here we are at AfD. The article is poorly written because it lacks sufficient reliable sources independent of the subject. As a result it reads like a CV/resumé combined with a poor high school essay. It's painful to read and should be put out of its misery unless it can be re-written using sufficient RS. NSH001 (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and Oregon. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft. Content regarding his scientific work and publications could support notability, if references can be provided. BD2412 T 17:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

seems a fairly clear Keep to me. AfD can delete either if the topic is not notable, or if the article is so badly written it would be better to start back from nothing. In this case the subject is probably notable as an academic, possibly as an ancient athlete, certainly as a combination of both. The article is dreadfully formatted, but the solution to that is not TNT, or AfD: it's to get typing and reformat it. Elemimele (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note Wikipedia's policy "Unsourced content is subject to removal" Most of this article is unsourced content (and therefore subject to removal, aka deletion). If not a total deletion, remove the sections with no sources. Unsourced content is either a hoax, not notable, or just someone didn't put in the effort to source it. If the third, then fix it. If the first two, then delete. Starship 24 (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 12:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i don't see enough coverage on this. Pershkoviski (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article makes a lot of uncited claims, and being in the Guinness Book of Records doesn't confer automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not enough in-depth coverage to show it passes WP:GNG.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:38, 17 April 2023 (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.