Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederic Wehrey


 * 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) 01:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Frederic Wehrey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Asserts perhaps marginal notability. An account claiming to be the subject has requested deletion, so per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE I've opened this discussion, though I myself am neutral. Wily D 11:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The article was edited wrong way and it's protected and locked we can't edit it, lots of warning issues which is a bad image, also not fair not to be able to edit it, much better to be deleted or open for edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederic Wehrey (talk • contribs) 14:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment by sock puppet struck.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep: The author works in high capacity for a huge and very notable DC think-tank, wrote a well-received and accoladed book, and was recently quoted liberally by name in Time Magazine. The subject is thus not a "relatively unknown, non-public figure" per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. This article was initially created on December 23 (less than a week after the Time article) as an apparent vanity project by the Wikipedia-inexperienced subject, and almost immediately slapped with a speedy tag (much edit-warring ensued to remove that tag); now the subject wants the article removed - ironically after solid reliable sources establishing notability have been found.) Pax 08:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  00:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - I believe the subject is notable under WP:SCHOLAR. He has been cited by Washington Post, Foreign Policy, Time, Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, and quite a few other notable publications.- MrX 19:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, There is some good noticeable amount of notability. VandVictory (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2015 (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.