Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy Brecher

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 procedural keep. This isn't really the appropriate place to discuss templates (WP:TEAHOUSE is a good place to ask questions if you're unsure and if the removal is in question WP:3O is always a good place to start as well) and in general, if you feel that the notability template doesn't apply, you can always WP:BEBOLD and remove it yourself. In any case, the general consensus seems to be that the tags no longer apply on the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Brecher

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

Notability has been in question since 2015. He is well published and the article is well-cited now. I seek consensus on deletion or removing the notability template Dubbin^{u | t | c} 08:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and remove the notability template. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove all tags. This article went through a massive cleanup recently, and all of the problem areas appear to have been removed. Bradv 22:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, is this appropriate for afd? maybe the nom could have been WP:BOLD by removing the notability and any of the other tags as appropriate then started a discussion on the article talkpage? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:SK as it seems apparent that the nominator does not think the page should be deleted. Andrew D. (talk) 05:38, 1 August 2016 (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.