Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheldon Richman

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 Cheers. I'^mperator 21:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheldon Richman[edit]

Probably non-notable. A prod on the page was contested 700 ks ago with "contest prod - he is a well-known author & journalist and thus notable - will address sourcing & other concerns ASAP", however, the page has not been edited since. Bob A (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of reliable sources, lack of notability. Appears to be a noisy libertarian in the blogosphere, but that's about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I contested the prod, but haven't had a chance to cleanup the article yet. Mr. Richman appears to be a fairly well-known author. For example, his papers ~~high~~ have significant citations on GScholar: [1]. He is the author of multiple notable books (as defined by WP:GNG - being covered by multiple RS). He has also held several significant posts. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"For example, his papers high significant citations on GScholar", I don't understand that sentence. Bob A (talk) 19:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in present form. Few cites on Google Scholar, no publisher given for books authored, does not pass academic/educator standard. Independent influence must be demonstrated. May do better as journalist/blogger if article is rescued. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep it and improve it. One should be very cautious before asking to delete an entry. I pretend that eradication of this entry is not the best solution. Only few things should be removed or modified. --Ludovic Sesim (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One should be very cautious in all of one's edits. But the sky will not fall down if a marginal BLP is deleted. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2009 (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.