Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Bengen


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

William Bengen

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Blatantly self-promotional article. While the subject has a few references, one of which he is only mentioned in tangentially, he is not published in any manner that makes him stand apart from tens of thousands of other published individuals who are not notable. This article was originally prodded, but the template was removed without rationale. Trusilver 01:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Massive number of citations in Gnews and some citation in Gbooks  seem to make a case for notability. -- Cycl o pia  talk  17:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - Sources found as listed above, and also sources found in Google Scholar. Meets notability criteria. Andy14and16 (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Very clear notability. Even the article atthe time it was nominated showed the notability.  DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 10 May 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.