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. Wordgardener If you would like the article put in your userspace so can retrieve the text, please let me know. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Fred[edit]

Charles Fred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

None of the independent provided sources are more than mere mentions of the subject, does not pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, Google Scholar searches returned no evidence that the subject's work is widely cited, and I tried searching both for several different forms of the subject's name, and specifically for their listed publications and those that supposedly were influenced by them–the fact that the article only cites one other author of dubious notability as the subject's legacy leads me to believe that this subject does not pass WP:NACADEMIC and WP:NAUTHOR. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Hi there, this my first article and I hope you'll forgive me if my response is incorrectly formatted. I added some more detail and more sources to this article. I'm not sure if they will satisfy the stated reasons for deletion, but I felt I needed to at least give it a try. I would say that some of the sources are definitely more than mentions of the subject mostly because they appear to based on the author's message and the terminology used in the book, even if they don't give full credit. I think this person is known for introducing a new technique in employee training, and has influenced multiple companies over the past two decades to use it. There has been coverage on this technique and this author for around 20 years. This person's method is now practiced in many hospitals and school systems because of their influence on two other authors to promote the same learning techniques. Thanks for your consideration. --Wordgardener (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the additional citations you've provided, the only one that appears to potentially have the sort of in-depth coverage of the subject necessary to demonstrate notability is [1], but most of the article is behind a paywall and the amount that is visible for free is not sufficiently in-depth. If it covers the subject in more depth, it would count toward the subject's notability. As for your claims that the subject's innovations have been put into practice, in the absence of sources that clearly reference or otherwise cite the subject they appear to be original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Saying that they "appear to be based" on Fred's publications simply because they are similar is insufficient–we need verifiable proof. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:19, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. If the speed to proficiency method was notable and well researched, then maybe the originator would be notable. PopularOutcast^talk2me! 02:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I did my own search as well as checking the references in the article and I don't see significant independent coverage of him. A number of the article's references don't even mention his name and many are not independent. I didn't check those behind paywalls, but the others were not enough to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2018 (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.