Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Cochran


 * 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.

Bert Cochran
The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sal2100 (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. After scouring through multiple search engines, per WP:BEFORE, no WP:RS-compliant significant coverage of the subject was found. Sal2100 (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn: Based on the valid arguments presented below, closing as speedy keep. Sal2100 (talk) 16:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, People, Michigan,  and United States of America. Sal2100 (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. Curbon7 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep or at the very worst, draftify. The subject suffers from having been active decades before the internet age and died before there would have been obituaries online. However, he co-founded a significant US political party and led a large split of "Cochranites". A search in Google books shows a plentiful supply of coverage in dozens of books which shows his influence was significant. Of course, this article needs better sourcing, hopefully the original author can help with this. Sionk (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep There are hundreds of academic articles accessible through the Wikipedia Library that reference Bert Cochran and/or his work. Easily meets notability standards. That said, the article needs citations. --SouthernNights (talk) 13:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see any policy-based reason to delete. The article needs specific citations but the references/sources in the article already meet WP:AUTHOR and probably WP:GNG as well. Even a pretty simple google search on his quoted name brings up multiple multiple reviews of his works and is mentioned often in published books and literature (one example ). Skynxnex (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. If nothing else, there appear to be large numbers of reliably published book reviews for his books on JSTOR, giving him a pass of WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2022 (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.