Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Ludes


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

James Ludes

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The subject does not appear to meet the general notability guideline required for inclusion as a stand-alone article. The references currently on the page are either not independent or not significant, I can't seem to find anything that is much better. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, insufficient coverage in sources to warrant an article. He certainly fails PROF and I don't see support for a different guideline.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think WP:GNG is a more appropriate standard than WP:PROF but I can't find the independent coverage of him in reliable sources that would be needed to pass. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 *  Do Not Delete. Academic is often sourced in niche publications in a niche field. Additional sources should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Securepubdialogue (talk • contribs) 20:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)  — Securepubdialogue (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete – per David Eppstein's comments. The article was created by the SPA Securepubdialogue, whose user name sounds a lot like the name of Ludes's think tank. Runs a bit too close to WP:SOAPBOX for my liking. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  11:56, 21 October 2010 (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.