Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jael Rogers


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Jael Rogers

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

Delete a declined prod but is being a Rhodes Scholar sufficient to be notable, even if the person didn't finish his studies (I'm not sure that BLP applies since he was born in the 1880s and would be at least 120 today) - the article asserts notability - in bold text, no less - but doesn't deliver any. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree that not every Rhodes Scholar is notable simply for having received the scholarship. There have been between 50 and 90 of them very year since 1902, after all. IceCreamEmpress (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete There is zippity-do-dah available on this guy; just being mentioned in one book about Rhodes Scholars does not get you past WP:BIO or whichever subcriterion applies here (be it WP:ACADEMIC or otherwise). &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I just came across this article and discovered the AFD template had been removed yesterday. I've put it back. Raven1977 Talk to me My edits  07:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment How can you delete this? He's a historic figure with several pages of discussion in the book that is cited (admittedly to Canadian Amazon but that is no excuse), and the fact that you have not heard of him is barely helpful. Has Wikipedia really now started deleting pages about factual historical figures whose lives have included actual achievements and that have been detailed in books published by respectable publishers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alph8 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The WP:BIO criteria are satisfied here! Just look: this satisfies both "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" (it cites a book available on Amazon and published by Yale University Press and moreover if that wasn't enough (which it is under WP:BIO), "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them". You can't deny this scholarship is notable (just check out Rhodes Scholarship for the very proof). Call it a stub if you want, or call for more specifics, but don't be overzealous in demanding deletion. Why so zealous? Edittah (talk) 21:16, 27 January 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.