Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Kolm

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 no consensus. Sock votes don't count, otherwise there seem to be fair arguments both for and against notability, with no clearly preponderant opinion emerging despite two relists. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Kolm[edit]

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

has written nothing notable and received no major awards. Article largely uncited and even if it was doesn't contain enough to meet WP:AUTHOR LibStar (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article creator blanked most of the text of the article, which I have now reverted. While it could be interpreted as a request for deletion by author, it looks more like sour grapes, so I will not move for CSD G7 and instead let this AfD continue on to conclusion. Richarddev (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Richarddev has left this identical comment in multiple irrelevant AfDs. There are no reversions of page-blanking in his recent contributions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Struck content above posted by a user indefinitely blocked for socking, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep - the RSes present and the fact that a university took on his papers strongly suggests prima facie notability, though the article could do with better sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:20, 17 September 2016 (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.