Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nat belz

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 16:54, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nat belz

Article fails to establish any grounds for notability. Uncle G 19:17, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

• (Very) Weak keep. From google search, he seems to be the actual publisher of a magazine (Explore!), and has been mentioned in the national newspaper Christian Science Monitor. If kept, the article stublet should be moved to Nat Belz (where it would still be an orphan). -- Infrogmation 19:51, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Create the Explore! article and redirect there, since this is the only reason of notability. Being a magazine editor is a plain regular non-notable job. Mikkalai 22:23, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, not notable enough. Megan1967 03:12, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Magazine editors are not inherently notable. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:07, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.