Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond B. Kemp


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Raymond B. Kemp

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I think this academic fails notability. He is not a tenured faculty member at Georgetown (http://explore.georgetown.edu/people/kempr/), but a research fellow (http://woodstock.georgetown.edu/fellows.html). I come up with only 13 Google Scholar hits. This seems to fail WP:ACADEMIC. The Google News archive hits do not indicate significant coverage to meet WP:BIO/WP:GNG, though they do confirm he was a District of Columbia school board member for a few years in the 1970s. Absent coverage, though, that doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Novaseminary (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete nominator justifies well.--Caravan train (talk) 18:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. scope_creep (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable in any of the roles described in the article: academic, researcher, priest or community organizer. --Crunch (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008  ( talk ) 17:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, seems notable, but needs more information and sources. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment That's precisely the problem, though. Anything (or anyone) would meet WP:N if there were enough reliable sources discussing it in detail. By saying that this individual fails to meet the various Wikipedia notability guidelines, we are not saying he is not worthy of note, or not important, or not valuable. Rather, just that the coverage, etc., does not yet justify an article. Novaseminary (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Article fails to demonstate notability. Carrite (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2010 (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.