Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Archie Barnes

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. Nakon 01:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Barnes[edit]

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

Doesn't meet any of the criteria at WP:NACADEMICS White Whirlwind 咨 17:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 23:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see enough published reviews or library holdings of his book Chinese through Poetry to justify notability as an author, and anyway even if the reviews were there we would have issues with notability for only one thing. As the nominator states, we also don't have evidence for notability as an academic. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ⨹ 20:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His book Chinese through poetry is this person's only claim to notability, as far as I can tell, and the book itself doesn't have much on the internet to qualify it as notable. RatRat (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Multiple searches at News, Books and Scholar found nothing related and the article doesn't have that much detail. SwisterTwister talk 04:35, 22 April 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.