Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanford Holst


 * 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. '''. In addition to the points raised in the discussion, his most popular book is held by only 31 libraries. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sanford Holst

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

a non-notable author whose books appear to be self-published. They are the only books published by Sierra Sunrise, which at least has a website. I can find nothing about the existence of 'Cambridge and Boston Press'. No reliable sources in the article (phoenician.org has Atlantis, etc stuff). The 'research papers' are just presentations at conferences it seems. Doug Weller (talk) 05:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, the author is simply not notable. JBsupreme (talk) 02:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. With respects, it'd be a shame to delete a oft-cited expert. If The National Geographic thinks he's worth quoting he might be notable enough for Wiki.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  16:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Sandstein   20:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 22:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. As a history researcher, he clearly fails WP:PROF. That fact is considered an expert by the publisher of one of his books is hardly surprising. One quotation on tsunamis in nationalgeographic.com doesn't make him an expert on Phoenicia either. VG &#x260E; 22:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete--I just came to the same conclusion as Vasile. One quote, that's all, and this press (which of course hails him as an expert) is a really, really small press--they've published two books. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The subject looks like an amateur who has begun writing research papers and books on his retirement. Since no evidence is given of the publication of his research papers in a reputable academic journal, I am unable to judge their merit; they could merely be typescipts sitting in his desk.  Unless the article is substantially improved during the AFD period, it must be deleted.  I am not suggesting that the subject may not have published valuable work, merely that the articel does not establish that it is valuable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There may be something defective in the nomination, as this page is a redlink in the notice on the page itself. 16:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, that's just the way MediaWiki works sometimes. Purging the page with the AFD notice on it or simply waiting will fix the problem.  Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 17:23, 18 October 2008 (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.