Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Abelman


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Michael Abelman

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

There is nothing indicating notability per WP:BIO, and a Google search turns up nothing useful. Oo7565 (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep He seems to be notabile in the field of organic farming. I've found a few references but I don't have enough time right now to really improve the article.  However, the article can be improved in the future. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is sourced, indicates notability, and there are numerous hits on Google Books . Edward321 (talk) 14:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is in considerable demand as a speaker on not only organic farming, but also food systems, food security and sustainability. I will add to the article over time. In the meantime, I think that what is there is sufficient there to establish notability. Sunray (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete There's only one reliable source here, not enough. --Sloane (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A terrific reason to either add the easily available sources yourself or simply tag the article for such. Being unsourced or one-sourced is not a valid reason for deletion when sources are readily available.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject of this article's name was misspelled. It's "Ableman" (as indicated on his web site) and not "Abelman". Searching Google with the correct spelling yields over 14K hits, with additional results in news and in books, including but not limited to his own books. I think this nomination owes to the misspelling: Not that the article doesn't need more work, sources, etc., but notability isn't really doubtful. (I moved the article to use the proper spelling.) --Shunpiker (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing that. I'm not sure how I managed to get it wrong [blush]. It surely made it more difficult to establish notability. Sunray (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I added a couple links to talk page to research - I'll try to address some of the issues over next couple days - Subject is notable. — Ched (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per above.  EagleFan (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you be able to explain why you think the subject does not meet WP:BIO? There are dozens of articles from reliable sources about Ableman. Sunray (talk) 16:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you expend a few seconds' effort before commenting then he clearly does seem to meet WP:BIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Snow keep as exceeding WP:GNG for WP:PEOPLE per Google,Google Books, and Google Scholar. Nom's reasons were perhaps understandable in light of original name mis-spelling effecting his search, but with the spelling corrected, his concerns evaporate.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There was probably confusion with the earlier surname misspelling, but now that it's been corrected, this article meets WP:BIO as, per Google Books, he's referenced in almost 100 books, including:, , , , , , , ,  for starters. Rosiestep (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2009 (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.