Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert J. Myers

:{{la|Robert J. Myers}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Robert J. Myers}})

This unreferenced WP:BLP seems to indicate that the subject isn't notable among WP:ACADEMICs. He's held a few positions which might be considered notable, but I'm not sure, and they're not supported by references. Given the subject's common name, it's very difficult to find reliable sources. I've found a text book he's written[http://books.google.ca/books?id=7nvWAAAAMAAJ] but that's about it. Pburka (talk) 17:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Question to nominator. As far as I can see, this BLP was not prodded before being taken to AfD. Why? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC).

• WP:PROD is for when an "article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate". I felt that this was was questionable so brought it here instead. Pburka (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

::Fair enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC).

I wrote this article. Dr. Myers was Executive Director of the Association for Business Communication for many years. That in itself is notable enough in my opinion for his inclusion at least as a small entry. What would you like me to do to make this a more suitable entry? Thank you. David A. Victor

• Much like a student's essay, this article requires references from reliable sources to support its claims. Ideally, we would like to see a newspaper, magazine, or journal article profiling the subject, for example. See WP:GNG for general notability guidelines and WP:ACADEMIC for notability guidelines for professors. While being the director of an important association would confer notability, I note that the Association for Business Communication article is also completely lacking reliable references, suggesting that that association itself may not satisfy our notability guidelines. Pburka (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

---

• Delete - based on the above search links, there seems to be a lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and in this context, I agree with the nominator that it appears this subject topic doesn't comply with the General Notability Guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2011 (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.