- 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 soft delete. There are unopposed rationales for delete after listing for over seven days; however, as only three participants WP:REFUND applies. SilkTork ( talk) 03:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Ric Hoeben
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Ric Hoeben ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cannot find WP:BASIC-satisfying sources. Although some of his work has been reviewed, I don't believe it's enough for WP:NAUTHOR #3 ("significant"/"well-known"). – Leviv ich 04:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Leviv ich 04:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. – Leviv ich 04:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete The only verifiable information apparent in the article or in searches is that he is an author and he's been published. This is not enough to satisfy either WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I am not seeing evidence of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 12:22, 8 November 2019 (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.