Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Sakolsky (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 delete. Kurykh (talk) 00:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

=[[:Ron Sakolsky]]=

AfDs for this article:

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Sakolsky}}

:{{la|Ron Sakolsky}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ron_Sakolsky_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Ron Sakolsky}})

BLP unsourced and tagged for notability since 2012. Books are not widely held—bestseller maxes out at 110 libraries. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) czar 17:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. czar 17:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. czar 17:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. czar 17:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Not much to find, even in GS. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC).
Delete. Insufficient scholarly impact for WP:PROF and insufficient real-world impact (per WP:GNG) for his activism. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete my searches did not find reviews of his books. I am not familiar with the publishers cited. One seems to be [http://www.eberhardtpress.org/ Eberhardt Press] and the other may be Fifth Estate (periodical). Small (very small) political presses. Not scholarly houses. Feel free to flag me to revisit if someone finds some indication that his work has had impact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Delete does not meet any of our inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Weak delete - he seems to have written a lot - he has a lot of works on Google scholar - but they might not have had a big impact. Bearian (talk) 04:32, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Delete can't find reliable source.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 20:58, 1 March 2017 (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.