Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Boardman


 * 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. PeaceNT 05:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Steve Boardman

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article makes claims of notability, but offers no citations. Google search doesn't seem to back up notability - most references are simply lists of the authors books or or trivial mentions - in my opinion, fails WP:BIO. MikeWazowski 02:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, clearly notable scholar in field, as the citation on page shows. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 07:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Deacon of Few Vowels. Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Although apart from writing several books about his subject and holding senior academic posts this Scottish historian hasn't appeared on 'Buffy' or in the NBA so he's obviously marginal. Nick mallory 15:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite. It is blatantly obvious that he is nowhere near as notable as Quagmire McDuck. --Mais oui! 15:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep- Passes a cursory google litmus test, so its plausible someone might type his name in the search box. Most of the first page hits appeared to be about this person too. -wizzard2k  ( C &#x2022;  T  &#x2022;  D ) 17:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- per WP:PROF- has published significant and well known academic work Thunderwing 21:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:PROF and the commenters above, the subject is reasonably notable. Yamaguchi先生 07:10, 28 May 2007 (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.