Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce G. Blair


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Bruce G. Blair

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet notability criteria. Non-notable commentator, and self-proclaimed expert. Article has no sources or substance, reads like a CV. Ottawakismet (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 1.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 15:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: Not only self-proclaimed. NYT described him as one in 1991: "... experts like the Brookings Institution's Bruce Blair ..." Sancho 22:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: A quick search turns out that he is on the faculty at Princeton as of May, 2013 and is currently (Dec, 2013) on the U.S. Secretary of State’s International Security Advisory Board That could certainly be used to argue that he is qualified to be called an expert, and that he is viewed as one by these organizations. Thet0rp (talk) 17:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - needs more refs but he was frequently quoted in the year 2000 era. If we keep AfDing article because there aren't enough editors to beef them up, soon there won't be any wikipedia. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - he has been established as a notable authority on this subject cited in prominent publications, such as the NYT and Washington Post, and has testified before Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmars122 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a shame that there are a lot of good people with lots of refs whose bios need updating. So many articles, so little time, even if you aren't obstructed. Sigh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep -   a quick news search shows he has recently been quoted by many respectable news organization on nuclear weapons and security. User:shingkeeyu  ([[User talk:shingkeeyu|Talk]) 10:30, 20 December 2013 (PST)
 * 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.