Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan M. Greenberg (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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alan M. Greenberg[edit]

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

An article on this subject was deleted by AfD in April 2012. The comments in that AfD look applicable to this new instance too. However, the 3 minute feature from 2015 on CBS News probably makes this worthy of a new discussion. That said, interviews and photographs with notable individuals do not result in inherited notability for the interviewer, and my searches are finding nothing that I regard as overturning the previous AfD conclusion. AllyD (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't creating the educational program and teaching foreign born students about American culture and history notable?Jewjitsu84 (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Educators at this level have no inherent notability, and the GNG definitely isn't met. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that the creator of the earlier deleted article edited the previous AfD after its closure to remove parts of the comments by User:Softlavender and User:MelanieN in this revision so it is no longer a fully-accurate summary of that AfD discussion. AllyD (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've rolled that back just now - see here - hopefully that's not going to need doing again. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:GNG or WP:PROF. A puff piece in a very local newspaper doesn't count for much, and we have nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unconvincing in WP:PROF. SwisterTwister talk 02:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and salt). Too slight for notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The one article on him is good but it's only local, so doesn't reach WP:GNG. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. Certainly doesn't meet WP:PROF, and a piece in the local paper and three minutes on the telly doesn't come close to the WP:GNG. Salt because it's already been deleted once; didn't get through AfC either; and the SPA(s) involved are showing a worrying willingness to circumvent policy with multiple accounts involved, bypassing AfC and deleting portions of others' comments in the previous AfD (!) with a misleading edit summary. We shouldn't waste any more volunteer time on this. – Joe (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No salting required. It's been recreated only once. Other than that, agree with the deletion. Lourdes 18:01, 4 February 2017 (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.