Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Meyer (author)

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. SarahStierch (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Meyer (author)[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable author/scholar/whatever. The press he started is his own presses and does not seem to have generate any kind of interest in reliable sources. His books are published by Temple Lodge, a "spiritual" press, and likewise have not generated any reliable coverage as far as I could tell. Nothing else I see in the article gives me reason to believe this person passes the GNG or any other notability guidelines. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like WP:ARTSPAM. Can't find anything showing notability either for Meyer or for Perseus Verlag. Someone who knows the German and Hungarian wikis might want to take a look at the articles there, which seem basically the same as here. --Randykitty (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- only real claim to notability is the Dokumentation eines wegweisenden Zusammenwirkens book, but he's clearly a minor author on that and even that book only has 21 libraries owning it in Worldcat (19 in original print, 2 in Perseus reprint). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the WP:ARTSPAM assessment. I did not find any credible notability references.--Stormbay (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with above - not notable. Uberaccount (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet N or GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of the in-depth coverage in independent sources required by WP:GNG and lack of evidence of scholarly impact needed for WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Brendon is here 08:44, 11 June 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.