Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Bidstrup

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. Ad Orientem (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Bidstrup

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability in question. All references go to the subject's personal website. Searching the Internet shows that his writing has attracted attention, but the only truly independent publication seems to be an issue of Opposing Viewpoints in which one of his essays appeared. —Soap— 01:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete absolutely no indication he has made any significant impact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just restored two paragraphs about Bidstrup that are independent of his own biography. He is also a published author, and his career is interesting. — Objectivesea (talk) 21:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Objectivesea: But the story about cellphones was earlier deleted by an IP, likely the subject himself, with an edit summary suggesting it was inaccurate. I'd say that information is better left out of the article, and that at best its inclusion is questionable and shouldn't be used as the basis to claim notability. —Soap— 18:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reviewing the available sources, non-notable, but not that far off. jcc (tea and biscuits) 22:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not notable in either of his fields. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO and significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.