Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles L. Brainard


 * 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. Star  Mississippi  01:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Charles L. Brainard

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

The article lacks sources that are secondary. They are really all just papers collections, which are primary sources. Beyond this, this is the Eisenhower Library publishing the papers of one of the founders of the organization, this is not in any way indepdent sourcing. John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:25, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Kansas. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * A bit short on sources, indeed. I've added one that I found (which I admit is lacking in much detail at all).  Online sources may be difficult to find so I think that if it would be kept, it would be through any offline sources that enthusiastic editors may be able to find.  I'm not that enthusiastic myself.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * @Paul McDonald, I found some sources, a few of which are now in the article. Jacona (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. At the time this was nominated, there was only 1 source actually in the article. However, many other sources existed, both online and offline. There are now 13 in the article. There are many more at newspapers.com. In addition, some of the sources now in the article point to the existence of other sources. I'm voting keep, because just the sources in the article amount to WP:SIGCOV that demonstrates meeting WP:GNG, but note that there are definitely more sources available which could be used to expand the article significantly. Jacona (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep nice research and a broad supply of articles. Speaks to WP:IMPACT.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:59, 15 May 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.