Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H. Beau Baez


 * 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. as non-notable - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 18:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

H. Beau Baez

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

Previously prodded by User:Abductive with reasoning "A search for references failed to find significant coverage in reliable sources to comply with notability requirements. This included web searches for news coverage, books, and journals, which can be seen from the following links: H. Beau Baez – news, books, scholar Consequently, this article is about a subject that appears to lack sufficient notability." and I agree. DreamGuy (talk) 15:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails both general notability guidelines and WP:PROF particularly. Drawn Some (talk) 15:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:PROF. I have done several Google News/Scholar searches and have been unable to find any sources to prove that Baez passes WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —Cunard (talk) 15:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as original prodder, I feel that this person is not notable. Abductive (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not seem to pass notability requirements under WP:PROF or WP:BIO. One hit on Google Scholar, with zero citations. Zero hits on WorldCat. Three hits on Google News, all minor mentions in news articles related to other subjects. Perhaps notability will come in the future, but now is not even close.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Snowball Delete. Despite appearances to the contrary, subject has no evident peer-reviewed legal research work (per WoS) – his papers appear in publications that are not mainstream law journals. For example, the Seattle University Law Review appears to be some kind of student journal: "The journal’s writing and editing assignments give student members opportunities to improve their writing skills and research techniques" (from their web page) and the NLA Review is the quarterly news & general interest bulletin of the National Lawyer's Association. Also, filing of an Amicus curiae brief is in no way notable – this is a routine procedure done quite frequently. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:03, 23 June 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.