Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Bolger

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. Missvain (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Bolger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article reads as self promoting and does not appear to meet Wikipedia's standards of notable people; academic or otherwise KnIsPow (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 19:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. In-depth coverage specifically about the subject in Harvard Crimson (2003), The Chronicle of Higher Education (2008), U.S. News & World Report (2010 and 2014) shows both enough sourcing for WP:GNG and ongoing interest in his story. His behavior may be self-promoting; that doesn't mean that we can't have an article about it or that the article itself is. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS the sourcing of the article as nominated was in sad shape, although all of the sources mentioned above did appear in some (perhaps unrecognizable) form. I've cleaned it up to the point where I think all sources are now adequately reliable for a BLP and adequately well formatted. I also added another major-newspaper story, in the Philadelphia Inquirer (2008). It is still not the case that all claims in the article are adequately sourced (although probably some of the sources can be reused for the unsourced claims) so more improvement remains to be done. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Written about in adequate depth for an adequate duration of time. XOR'easter (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable subject. I agree with David Eppstein’s comment regarding possibly self-promotional behavior by the subject (it’s not a reason in and of itself to delete). Elms^super 06:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.