Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerhard Lomer


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure)  Coco bb8  (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 18:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Gerhard Lomer

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

Nothing shows the notability. Of the three sources; two are written by the subject and the other by their employer. -- NotC hariza rd 🗨 03:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- NotC hariza rd  🗨 03:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Canada,  and New York.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  04:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * keep I have added a number of citations. There are many, many more available.A BEFORE search, if one was done, would have revealed numerous sources about the article subject. For example, this search  should have been a clue that notability would be shown.  I used archive links so there wouldn't be a paywall issue.  Per WP:NEXISTS even without citations in the article this nomination would have been without foundation. Oblivy (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep -- the quote from a reliable source "undoubtedly the single most important individual in the history of Canadian library education" is enough to show notability unless there are significant reasons to doubt the independence. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * McNally wrote that in 1996, and at the time he was chair of the Canadian Library Association. It looks like Quebec Library Association (of which Lomer was honorary president until 1970) did not become a member of the rebooted national group until 2016. So even though McNally certainly has some pro-librarian bias I don't see anything that would call his independence, or that of the publisher, into question. Oblivy (talk) 10:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep passes WP:GNG based on current content plus found more on a newspapers.com search (for instance    ). KylieTastic (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2024 (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.