Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Ehrlich


 * 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) – Davey 2010 Talk 23:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Howard Ehrlich

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability not demonstrated, relies on primary sources despite being tagged for this in 2010. PROD was declined in 2008‎ by user:Jfire on the grounds that "book has 120 cites on Google scholar, started a notable journal", but this has yet to be substantiated. I looked on Google Books and while I found some mentions in independent sources that confirm the basic facts of his life and work, IMHO they did not confirm notability. – Fayenatic  L ondon 05:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR  (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR  (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --  1Wiki8 Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR  (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * There was an obit in the Baltimore Sun here:.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly passes WP:PROF #8 as editor of Social Anarchism. StAnselm (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The journal editorship and major-newspaper obit are enough for me. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk  18:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: it helps that the bio is now linked to an article on the journal, but that article is also lacking sources, and does not demonstrate that it is a "major, well-established academic journal" as required by WP:PROF #8. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Article passes WP:PROF #8 as said above and the newspaper obituary is what makes me vote keep. MrWooHoo (talk) 01:40, 14 September 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.