Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monroe Gliedman


 * 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. North America1000 22:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Monroe Gliedman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is clearly a vanity page created by a relative, not an encyclopedia article. Fails WP:GNG anong others. Can't find any reliable sources that support notability.  Harry   Let us have speaksundefined 14:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)


 * An accomplished individual who simply doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion in here, as stated by the nominator. WP:NOTWEBHOST. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. I looked up several refs cited in the article. Some do not pass WP:RS (several refs to ancestry.com), several others do not mention the subject at all (e.g. Ref no. 8 ). Googling returns essentially nothing useable in terms of WP:V. The subject certainly has an fascinating personal history, but the page needs to be maintained by a family member externally, not as a Wikipedia article. No indication of passing any of the relevant notability guidelines here, such as WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Last couple of comments summarise things well. Doesn't appear to be notable, when judged against WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete falls short of any notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * SNOW Delete as there's certainly enough consensus here, quite detailed but still nothing noticeably convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  04:23, 9 June 2016 (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.