Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark E. Hyman


 * 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   keep. The consensus here is that this was not vetted for WP:BEFORE and that the concern of notability is not valid. (non-admin closure)  D u s t i *Let's talk!* 01:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Mark E. Hyman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. 2602:306:CE9A:860:3188:950A:58FA:5B45 (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, Hyman is the subject of significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Thus he meets WP:GNG. Huon (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 September 16.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 21:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as subject of reliable significant coverage. BTW, seems a tad pointy; advertisement, primary sources, singles ource, neutral sources – these are not obvious to me and should be more specifically directed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, it appears that steps requested prior to sending an article to WP:AFD has not been met here. A quick search for reliable sources regarding the subject of this article (once one drops the middle initial) finds a plethora of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (news, books). Therefore the subject clearly meets WP:GNG. Now does this article need to be worked on, sure; however, I don't see a reason that this article can't be worked on and salvaged instead of the possible WP:TNT solution.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2014 (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.