Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Okun


 * 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. Killiondude (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Lewis Okun

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am unable to find significant discussion of the individual in multiple reliable sources per WP:GNG. Also does not appear to meet criteria of WP:NACADEMIC. His work has been cited in other works, but that doesn't rise to the level of notability, I don't see anything that considers him an expert, or "When judged against the average impact of a researcher in his or her field, does this researcher stand out as clearly more notable or more accomplished than others in the field?" ... disco spinster   talk  01:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 08:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 08:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 08:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 08:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 10:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete Relies entirely upon what appears to be a self-published profile and some mentions in academic texts that can't be verified. Doesn't meet WP:PROF. Famous dog (woof)(grrr) 12:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As the creator of the article I agree that he probably doesn't really meet WP's notability standards, however I have no connection with him and a quick Google book search will verify what the article says. That's how I wrote it. :-). PopSci (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Why did you start the article is you knew he was not notable?
 * To get rid of a red link where he is quoted in another article. My original Google search seemed to show he was more notable than he turned out to be.PopSci (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete not anywhere close to passing any inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2018 (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.