Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Craig Biddle
=[[Craig Biddle]]=
:{{la|Craig Biddle}} – (
:({{findsources|Craig Biddle}})
Subject shows no notability outside of the subject area. I see no non-Objectivist sources which discuss this individual, and thusly does not have "significant coverage by independent sources." Angryapathy (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Self published books and a self published journal. Not notable. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, essentially an unsourced and unsourceable BLP; there are [http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22Craig%20Biddle%20%22&oq=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn zero news Ghits] and [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1641498452707275359&hl=en&as_sdt=20000000000 only two scholar Ghits]. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. I liked his book, but I can't see how he meets any notability standard for a Wikipedia article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
- Unless reliable coverage can be found, the article ought to be deleted. Skomorokh 01:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not sure if The Objective Standard is notable or not. If it is, Craig Biddle should redirect there. If it isn't, someone should start an AfD on it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- :I did some research, and have nominated The Objective Standard for deletion, also. Angryapathy (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as NN. JBsupreme (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete per all of the above. Would also accept a redirect to Objectivist movement as a secondary option. TallNapoleon (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2010 (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.