Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philip Gain

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. SOFTDELETE per low participation herein. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Gain[edit]

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

The most relevant notability guideline is WP:AUTHOR. The Yale World Fellowship may indicate that he is "regarded as an important figure" by peers. He has a history of being briefly quoted by other journalists, such as: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. His list of publications is extensive, but nearly everything longer than his newspaper articles is a report or documentary published by one of the two NGO's he has headed. Worldcat holdings are sparse, and Google Scholar citations are modest. I've been unable to find reviews of his work. It is unclear whether the subject is notable. Worldbruce (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 22:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:45, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of secondary reliable source. - Mar11 (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2016 (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.