Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raleigh Muns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. W.marsh 16:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raleigh Muns

Raleigh Muns (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article does not assert notability needed to pass WP:BIO. Being a reference librarian and writing a few articles for the Daily Kos are not nearly sufficient enough to make a person notable. I do not think that helping to archive the CIA's World Factbook is enough to make Muns notable either. There does not appear to be coverage from many reliable sources. Pablo Talk | Contributions 21:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, I'm willing to believe that someone can be a notable reference librarian, but this isn't quite it. Without sources, there is no notability. --Dhartung | Talk 22:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - The article contains multiple sources establishing notability, inline with Wikipedia:Notability (people) (sources given are also verifiable and reliable). I do believe, however, that this article could be sourced better—preferably with inline citations. It could also be copy edited to a higher quality. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper, so... while the Encyclopaedia Britannica may not have an article on this person, Wikipedia can. Matthew 10:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Matthew. Notability has been established, and I quite frankly wish to know more about how he helped compile information life the CIA's world fact book.EnsRedShirt 06:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per above, notability has been established but needs to be fleshed out. I'm also interested in the CIA World Fact Book and how such a unique and interesting resource came to be.awgh 18:58, 18 May 2007 (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.