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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply

John Stehr

John Stehr (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

This article was originally speedy-deleted as CSD A7. DRV overturned, finding that a claim of notability was asserted. However, as the article currently lacks sources, it fails WP:V. Delete, pending sources and other opinions. Xoloz 15:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete This is the first time I've seen Xoloz forward an article from DRV with any opinion other that "abstain", and I can see why. There's no explanation of why this fellow is any more significant than other practitioners of his high-profile profession. Shalom ^Hello 15:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm impressed that you noticed. :) However, for the record, I've stopped abstaining at the insistence of several process "wonks" who insist that every AfD must begin with a request for deletion. I continue to believe, personally, that abstentions are both valid and wise, but I've grown tired of arguing the point. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment Then in some professional niche--not necessarily this one-- where every member received press coverage, you still would not consider most of them notable? DGG ( talk) 21:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep, I fixed it up a little and added a source. Callelinea 23:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete The article reads like a resume. Must establish notoriety in an area larger than Indianapolis, Indiana. ShoesssS ^Talk