Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Cleaver

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 Keep, AFD listing argument was non-notable subject, notability has been established within this discussion. Non Admin Close Dusti^SPEAK!! 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Cleaver[edit]

Entry does not meet notability standards for academics. As far as I can tell, this guy is just a normal academic out of Texas. Note that all of the links are to this guy's own stuff. Magickyleo101 (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For more information on guidelines see Wikipedia:Notability (academics). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magickyleo101 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - just because the references to reliable sources aren't in the article, doesn't mean the subject is not notable. Search him on a search engine, you get many hits to reliable sources, such as interviews, biographies, etc. [1]SRX^--^Latino Heat 13:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per SRX. The nomination is poorly presented. The nominator’s first duty should have been to improve the article rather than nominate it. Nominator lacks WP experience necessary to be making AfD nominations. --Kevin Murray (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Google scholar citations 120, 79, 72, 57, 34, 18, 19, 14, 13, 10... 6, 44, 6, 5, 5, ... Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep All I can find of his work is just the one book, a small number of essays, some translations. -- and the articles from Google Scholar. I think that's borderline. DGG (talk) 19:18, 19 June 2008 (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.