Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Haskell

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Haskell[edit]

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

I could not find reliable sources to indicate notability. —mono 00:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically spam for his weekly newsletter and his financial advice. Hard to search Google for him, because most hits are for a much more notable engineering professor of the same name. Amazon search turns up an author of computer books, who may or may not be the same person as the engineering professor but is certainly not this guy. --MelanieN (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have been reading Richard Haskell’s economic commentary since 2007. I find him notable and widely published and known for his market and economic analysis. I think he has a PhD in economics. He appears numerous times on the first several pages of Google, Yahoo and Bing searches. NOTE: This comment was posted by User|Ewright06; it constitutes the first and only post he/she has ever made on Wikipedia.

Comment Things like having a PhD and getting Google hits are all very well but they do not make him notable as Wikipedia defines it; see WP:N. (And as I noted above, most of the Google hits I got were for a different Richard Haskell.) If you want to prove he is notable you need to show us information ABOUT him published by independent reliable sources (not including his own press releases, his own web page, facebook, etc.). --MelanieN (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep....I believe that Rick Haskell is noteworthy because his views about economic issues presented on the Signature Update e-newsletter is widely respected and have been widely cited by others. Signature Update is read by 27,000 readers each month and is passed along to many other readers...I think that Rick Haskell will become more prominent academically as he continues work on his Doctoral degree.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoyoteRic (talk • contribs) 16:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC) NOTE: This is the first and only post CoyoteRic has ever made on Wikipedia. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage I can find. (Above accounts have only made one edit as one can see.) Christopher Connor (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of the coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Nuttah (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The SPA's are trying to make him sound notable, but he fails WP:GNG. ArcAngel (talk) ) 19:32, 10 July 2010 (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.