Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Neer (2nd nomination)

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The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Neer

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

Unreferenced BLP. Laun chba ller 21:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the previous AfD was nine years ago, and its rationale was its length. Needless to say, it was kept.--Laun chba ller 22:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is clearly notable - see these Google News Archive search results and these Google Books search results for starters. As for lack of references, that shows a need for improvement not deletion. The only thing in the article that is objectionable from a BLP standpoint is the "Sir Sominex" quote - that could be yanked pending someone giving a source (on a quick look I see web mentions but not an RS). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've been able to reference almost everything in the article, including his friendship with Springsteen. The Sir Sominex thing appears to be a running gag - two examples added. Press mentions, book mentions, including a Kirkus review of his book. Meets GNG. I only wish the article creator had referenced it! Yngvadottir (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely brilliant. (As this was an entirely unreferenced BLP before, expanding it 2x would make it eligible for WP:DYK.) Withdrawn.--Laun chba ller 16:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]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.