Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richards Heuer

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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richards Heuer[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)

This is a heavily WP:REFBOMBed WP:FANCRUFT article on a CIA analyst. Of the 13 sources:
- 3 are non-RS (a paid obit on legacy.com, the webpage of a company called ctovision.com, an Amazon author page listing)
- 4 are publications written by the subject of the article itself
- 1 is WP:PRIMARY - a collection of released documents on a U.S. Government website
- The remaining 5 simply don't mention the subject of the article at all
A WP:BEFORE on newspapers.com and Google Books fails to find anything to redeem it. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Philosophy, Military, Psychology, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am satisfied from [1] that the subject is notable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: His top two books are highly cited, which verifies the statement that he's a "giant in the field of analysis" in the CIA Studies in Intelligence obit mentioned above (which is not WP:PRIMARY—it's a peer-reviewed academic journal), so he seems to be notable per WP:ACADEMIC#C1. I agree this barely passes notability guidelines, but remember that intelligence analysis is not a high-profile world! Biogeographist (talk) 20:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:42, 12 February 2024 (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.