Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Hull

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. Cbrown1023 23:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Hull[edit]

Delete Fails wp:prof, only a few edited volumes and nothing else Buridan 01:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Akihabara 02:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & WP:PROF or WP:BIO SkierRMH,09:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom (note for google searches: there is a guitarist of the same name with quite a big web presence). Sam Clark 15:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Written books/articles of general interest; founder of a college LaszloWalrus 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF. TonyTheTiger 23:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Founder of a college is not subject to wp:prof. Fg2 01:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it is not a college of any note until it earns acceditation. There are a thousand closed colleges and many forgotten founders. Founding a new college does not establish notability, or we'd have every no-name fake diploma company founder in here. --Buridan 02:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The college was so notable that it was proded, and then deleted thereafter. [1] So let's skip past that. The typical notable professor has tenure. He doesn't. That may be for good reasons of his own philosophy, but it also causes it to be more difficult to make a case for his notability. The article doesn't make that case, and it doesn't use independent reliable sources. So it fails to demonstrate that he meets the primary notability criteria. I can't see any other criteria of WP:PROF (proposed guideline) or WP:BIO (guideline) that he meets. GRBerry 03:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fairsing 23:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on books; WP:PROF is only a proposed guideline and is IMO too restrictive. JamesMLane t c 15:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

fails wp:bio too, doesn't it? --Buridan 17:19, 20 December 2006 (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.