- 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. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Arnold Lockshin
AfDs for this article:
- Arnold Lockshin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page contains no valid sources. Most of the information it mentions have no sources - as evidenced by the tags. So there is no point in having an inaccurate page present on the wiki. Sciophobiaranger ( talk) 00:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 4. — cyberbot I NotifyOnline 00:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - The article includes reliable sources which show evidence of significant coverage, including an AP article and two pieces from the Chicago Tribune. Some of the references are inappropriately listed as external links, but that's not an appropriate deletion rationale. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 08:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Google books gives a number of additional links, including Life. US News and World Report, a long interview in the Texas Monthly , discussion in quite ann umber of books dealing American communism in the period, a note in Pravda as reported in Current Digest of the Soviet Press, . I'll add them. I'll also add some basic bio: his degrees, for one thing. What happened to WP:BEFORE? For that matter, what happened to reading the article & looking at its source lists before concluding there were no sources? DGG ( talk ) 14:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- You do know a whole section contained no sources, right? And the only source in it was a dead link, right? The article did not contain many sources, the only two working sources were an AP article and a Google Book. And the article clearly was biased, and didn't offer any other viewpoints. Add sources now, but there weren't many to begin with. Are you unable to notice the "CITATION NEEDED" tags or are they not appearing on your end? The article lacks appropriate sources and neutral point of view. What happened to WP:NPOV? What happened to looking over the article and noticing that there are quite a lot of citations needed? What happened to getting a pint of logic and realizing that the article is extremely bias when there is clearly a rule against that? Sciophobiaranger ( talk) 19:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Snow keep. As nominated it had five different newspaper articles about the subject, a clear pass of WP:GNG. The fact that four were listed as external links is irrelevant. And a trout for the nominator for trying to delete an obviously-notable subject, for continuing to make false claims about the nonexistence of sources, and for using AfD when cleanup is the more appropriate choice. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. ( non-admin closure) Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 02:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Arnold Lockshin
AfDs for this article:
- Arnold Lockshin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page contains no valid sources. Most of the information it mentions have no sources - as evidenced by the tags. So there is no point in having an inaccurate page present on the wiki. Sciophobiaranger ( talk) 00:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 October 4. — cyberbot I NotifyOnline 00:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - The article includes reliable sources which show evidence of significant coverage, including an AP article and two pieces from the Chicago Tribune. Some of the references are inappropriately listed as external links, but that's not an appropriate deletion rationale. EricEnfermero HOWDY! 08:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Google books gives a number of additional links, including Life. US News and World Report, a long interview in the Texas Monthly , discussion in quite ann umber of books dealing American communism in the period, a note in Pravda as reported in Current Digest of the Soviet Press, . I'll add them. I'll also add some basic bio: his degrees, for one thing. What happened to WP:BEFORE? For that matter, what happened to reading the article & looking at its source lists before concluding there were no sources? DGG ( talk ) 14:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- You do know a whole section contained no sources, right? And the only source in it was a dead link, right? The article did not contain many sources, the only two working sources were an AP article and a Google Book. And the article clearly was biased, and didn't offer any other viewpoints. Add sources now, but there weren't many to begin with. Are you unable to notice the "CITATION NEEDED" tags or are they not appearing on your end? The article lacks appropriate sources and neutral point of view. What happened to WP:NPOV? What happened to looking over the article and noticing that there are quite a lot of citations needed? What happened to getting a pint of logic and realizing that the article is extremely bias when there is clearly a rule against that? Sciophobiaranger ( talk) 19:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Snow keep. As nominated it had five different newspaper articles about the subject, a clear pass of WP:GNG. The fact that four were listed as external links is irrelevant. And a trout for the nominator for trying to delete an obviously-notable subject, for continuing to make false claims about the nonexistence of sources, and for using AfD when cleanup is the more appropriate choice. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- 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.