Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William E. Nelson


 * 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. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  23:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

William E. Nelson

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

Found while cleaning broken links, and noticed very few to no external reliable sources to establish notability. There are a few links to local TV interviews about Wax, but no citations of patents, or other notable (cited and verifiable) accomplishments. Plastikspork (talk) 00:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral - Substantial and multiple local TV interviews should be enough to establish notability, I would think. But I don't know how easy they would be to verify.
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —  Aitias   // discussion 00:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I suppose in the field of wax hes' notable. Article has citations and proof of recognition in the world for his actions, i don't know that patents alone could be a mark of NOTE, he does have the RW sources though. Not terribly exciting to the casual reader though. ThuranX (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep: The invention itself, plus the media mentions, pushes this article to where I'm comfortable keeping it, but I can see valid arguments for deletion as well. That said, the sourcing is terrible, and most of the sources aren't really sources, but external links. There HAS to be something more out there for this individual, and I think we are probably having a dead-tree-format vs. digital divide issue in sourcing here. Can we get some help from somebody in environmental circles with university library access to check up and see if they can find anything more? It doesn't help that the law professor William E. Nelson is clogging the search results. Perhaps he needs an article himself. ;) Jo7hs2 (talk) 02:36, 7 February 2009 (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.