Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gideon Lewis-Kraus


 * 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   delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Gideon Lewis-Kraus

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

fail to meet the relevant notability guidelines, verifiability, people notable only for one event. Cherrybe066 (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * weak keep changed to delete some limited coverage here and in google books . LibStar (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * delete Not notable. We don't need an article on every critic that exists. Where's my article? - Drew Smith What I've done 09:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is nothing in the article or elsewhere to suggest notability. LibStar's "some limited coverage here" is not significant. Most of the references are either to articles which Lewis-Kraus has written, not articles about him, or to articles which make very brief passing mentions to him. One of the more substantial references is an acknowledgment: I also want to thank Gideon Lewis-Kraus, my former research assistant at Stanford, for indispensible assistance in preparing this volume for publication...; most are less than that. Yes, and we do find that he was one of several co-authors of a book; that being the most significant mention I found among the couple of dozen of the references that I followed up, but we only find that he is a co-author, not that there has been substantial independent comment about the book of which he was a co-author. There may be more, but nobody has yet shown that there is. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per lack of significant coverage Corpx (talk) 22:37, 19 August 2009 (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.