Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Sheldon Foote

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. Michig (talk) 07:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Sheldon Foote[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE. All the citations used are not reliable sources, they're blog sites. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources of this person that I could find. Transcendence (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. T C N7JM 02:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. T C N7JM 02:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sourcing about the subject. Need reliable intellectually independent sources about Foote that show his notability is genuine and not artificially manufactured. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He appears not to pass WP:PROF as a professor, WP:POLITICIAN as a political activist, nor WP:GNG as a news commentator. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep He's been cited by Iranian government media as indicated by the many footnotes, and a noted scholar Paul Sheldon Foote http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/23652999/paul-sheldon-foote

California State University Fullerton Publications: 4 | Citations: 1 Fields: General Economics & Teaching, Business Administration & Economics Collaborated with 12 co-authors from 2002 to 2007 | Cited by 5 authors

comment Transcendence has demonstrated a destructive pattern of afd's for articles on terrorist-style attacks with national and international coverage, or individuals connected to state sponsors of terrorism as Foote shows clear ties and bias towards Iran. Redhanker (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His academic sourcing is pretty sparse, how does he pass the criteria of WP:PROF? Foote actually seems more "notable", if he is, as an anti-Semitic commentator on Iranian owned Press TV, which has been banned from the European Union, see Press_TV_controversies#2010. Interesting how his Wikipedia article doesn't mention this, Google "Sheldon Foote anti-Semitic Press TV". But that is a one-event thing. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 13:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Eppstein. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 01:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The notability hook here is not as an academic, but as a public intellectual holding very pronounced views on the Middle East. The question is whether he passes GNG; that's unclear to me — probably a close call. His message has been picked up by the far right Institute for Historical Review, see HERE. A very controversial figure with a substantial footprint on the web, which indicates to me that we should go the extra mile to see if there is adequate sourcing to support a GNG claim. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've spent considerable time taking the Google results down multiple pages for a number of different searches. I'm not finding anything that counts towards GNG. Feel free to disregard this opinion if sources appear, as this is clearly a public figure. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2013 (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.