Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Lemm


 * 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. While the sentiment is roughly split numerically, 2 'deletes' are weak, pointing to existing reviews of the subject's work in secondary sources. I could see a potential case for a 'no consensus' close, but with a stronger policy argument based on these reviews, I think the consensus is that this article satisfies GNG. Accordingly, I'm closing as 'keep.' Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:07, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Richard Lemm

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no indication of notability. Same editor creating a bunch of biographies of questionable notability. See https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Chuang726 Graywalls (talk) 11:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 11:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Former full English professor at the major university and sufficient coverage per WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:THREE.  scope_creep Talk  08:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Leaning Keep, a late career academic and a published author. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Similar to Laurence Hutchman, being a professor isn't on its own enough for notability, nor are the local news articles cited WP:SIGCOV. There may be a case for WP:NAUTHOR here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , so do you think this article should be kept or deleted? For the purpose of AfD, if you don't mind putting your position if you have taken a position... thanks Graywalls (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Sadly, even top poets are often too difficult to source to achieve Wikipedia-notability. They don't tend to have the in-depth coverage such as book reviews that one would expect for other people working in the humanities. In this case, the awards are a good start but they're too local to convince me. And full professor at major university is suggestive but not by itself sufficient for WP:PROF notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per David Eppstein. I don't see NPROF here, and it doesn't look like there's NAUTHOR either.  I'll comment that I did find one review of his nonfiction book on Milton Acorn, but no other reviews in reliable sources. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Hard to see impact on others. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC).
 * Keep There are long reviews of his works in the Montreal Gazette and the Calgary Herald, and that's just from a very quick look on Newspapers.com. I will add them and others I find to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2019 (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.