Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith S. Lockwood


 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Keith S. Lockwood

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

BLP has carried "unsourced" and "notable tags" for 16 months; my casual search for web-based reliable sources failed. Article has been maintained by a series of similarly-named single-issue editors who seem very familiar with article subject (apparent COI), the most recent of which refused PROD. Article subject might in fact be notable, but in the absence of acceptable sources, and the mildly promotional tone (IMHO) of the article call that into question. Delete or source. Studerby (talk) 21:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC) Article is well written and is referenced. Multiple articles written by this person and listed APA format. Articles in Journal of Nursing and the Journal for Learning Consultants. This person is developing a reputation and is the reputed writer of "The Constructivist Manifesto." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.93.76.70 (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC) — 160.93.76.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - no notability that meets WP:PROF in any manner. (GregJackP (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC))
 * Delete The article doesn't even appear to claim anything that satisfies WP:PROF, never mind source it. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  05:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I don't even see a claim of notability here. It's just an ordinary person's bio.  Probably could have been speedied, but I guess since it's well-written it gets its day in court. --Griseum (talk) 06:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete He has a doctorate, but no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. So he wrote into The New York Times once, ... --Bejnar (talk) 03:29, '''1 March 2010 (UTC)

BLP claims to have completed web search for reliable sources. Upon my review of sources they do seem to exist and article should not be delted. LENA4674 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.93.76.70 (talk) 18:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC) — 160.93.76.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Perhaps article should be blended but not entirely deleted--notability is clearly evident. Lena 4674 — Lena4671 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/american_annals_of_the_deaf/v152/152.2doctoral_dissertations.pdf http://www.kennesaw.edu/cetl/conferences/gaconf/2010/17%20Session-Paper%20List.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.93.76.70 (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC) — 160.93.76.70 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Hopeless article, I can't even tell what he is or what he does. Is he a teacher? A professor? An author? An "advocate"? An unemployed PhD? Google search does not make his field or contributions any clearer. Maybe if the article was userified until it makes some sense, it would be possible to determine whether the guy is notable or not. --MelanieN (talk) 03:19, 2 March 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.