Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clayne Robison

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clayne Robison[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lacks the independent sources to satisfy WP:BIO. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Idaho. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sufficient sources have been added (though not yet cited in footnotes). Skyerise (talk) 13:54, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:31, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while its a fairly close run-thing, I do not believe Robison passes WP:GNG. The Deseret News article is a pretty clear puff piece that largely takes the form of an interview in any case, and the academic sources cited are a bit hard to analyse but seem to only provide passing mentions of Robison. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to see some assessment of changes made since the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per Devonian Wombat. I don't see enough to hang an article on here. Even if we accept the Deseret News article without qualifications, there don't seem to be any other sources that wouldn't require OR to extract the content, which means we're still short of WP:NBASIC. To the extent it might be a borderline case, it seems to me WP:BLP and the associated privacy considerations would weigh pretty strongly against inclusion. -- Visviva (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2023 (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.