Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Gunderson (2nd nomination)

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. no arguments for deletion (- nom) after three weeks JForget 00:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Gunderson[edit]

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

No evidence of notability given. References that are used show that he existed but not that he was individually notable per Wikipedia's standards. Had tangential involvement in a notable case, but that does not suggest individual notability. DreamGuy (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - one can find lots of sources online, see this Times article - but I am not convinced totally of his notability. Bearian (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - minor player in major case. There may be additional revelations forthcoming shortly thanks to Top Secret America and related exposés. Jeremy stalked_{(law 296)} 20:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2010 (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.