Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Tschohl


 * 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   no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 19:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

John Tschohl

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable consultant. Refs are links to worldcat searches which are not reliable sources establishing notability in and of themselves.  MBisanz  talk 20:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. It would be helpful if the nominator could explain how, when he was doing his pre-nomination research, he came to the conclusion that the many independent sources found by a Google Books search fail to establish notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep but improve the sourcing. It is currently based entirely on primary sources, but a Google news archive search shows that enough secondary sources exist that he likely passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 7 May 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.