Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert L. Drexel

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. RockMagnetist(talk) 06:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Drexel

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

My searches simply found nothing and to suggest improvement with my best results here and here and I couldn't anything to confirm he was one of seven founders or else I would've mentioned him and redirected to that article. SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 19:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is the first entry in the standard GBooks search, looks reliable and gives precisely the information currently in the article - but only mentions him just that once. Some of the other entries in the GBooks search seem to be infinitesimally indicative of notability, in that they are study guides on criminology-related subjects which repeatedly give his name as one of the wrong answers in multiple-choice questions - there should presumably be questions to which he is the right answer, but I can't find them (let alone then find better sources for any resulting information). PWilkinson (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looking on Google News, Google Books, etc turns up on the slimmest bits of information on this fellow. The article as it's written now, as well, is pretty bad. I feel inclined to just delete it. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2015 (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.