Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Turkel


 * 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 both articles. NorthAmerica1000 19:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Peter Turkel

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seemingly unnotable author/journalist; I found nothing in my searches to put him over the threshold for eligibility. I'd have prodded this, but it's been around a fair old while and I figured there could well be offline sources, so thought I'd get some other eyes on it. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the article on his book, which I can similarly find no sources for:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't find anything on him online, but he had the misfortune of dying just before the Web came into existence, so easy-to-find online sources are not to be expected. He appears to have only written the one book; it was published by a significant religious press (Paulist), but that still puts the book in a niche category. Everything that I can find about him online is copied from this WP article. Unless someone comes up with some offline resources, this needs to be a delete. LaMona (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the book itself definitely does not meet the criteria for a notable book. That is a definite delete but putting them together on the AfD others may not notice the dual vote here. LaMona (talk) 00:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Rcsprinter123    (warn)  @ 15:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 19:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete both&mdash;I've tried google scholar, the Access newspaper archive and the academic version of LexisNexis. I'm not seeing any mentions, much less reviews.  Worldcat shows 75 libraries hold Chemical Religion; that's high enough that I would expect to find a few reviews, but not nearly enough to make an argument for notability based on the holdings alone.  Kudos to both Dylanfromthenorth and LaMona for their thoughtful nomination and comment, respectively.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:16, 6 December 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.