Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Leo Sprinkle

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R. Leo Sprinkle

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

No significant coverage or references of WP:BLP, and fails notability requirements of WP:GNG, WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. mikeman67 (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 March 4. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 19:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. Get rid of the fringe sources. The article should be rewritten using academic sources who discuss Sprinkle in a sociological context rather than credulous UFO/conspiracy books: [1], [2], [3]. Volunteers sorely needed to do this work. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All three of those books mention him around once or twice in 300+ pages, and rather incidentally. That doesn't seem like significant coverage, per WP:BIO or WP:PROF, even if they are reliable sources. mikeman67 (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Very few citations for pop-psychology. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep he's notable, probably enough for WP:PROF but just barely and the article, as it stands, doesn't reflect that notability. Simonm223 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

which categories of WP:Prof do you claim are satisfied? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Abysmal GS citation record, absolutely no evidence of passing WP:PROF. No evidence either that any other notability guideline is passed. --Randykitty (talk) 12:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation record is too meager to provide evidence of passing WP:PROF#C1 and no other sign of notability is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:03, 7 March 2014 (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.