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. Article may be restored by any administrator on request. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald C. Anderson

[edit]

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

Article only contains primary sources and I can't find anything else out there to get this subject past WP:GNG. Vrac (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 09:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. An accomplished individual who appears to have held a number of upper level positions in important organizations, however, I'm not sure that there is anything that puts him over the top per Wikipedia's guidelines. I did find non-trivial coverage in a secondary source from his alma mater here. - Location (talk) 16:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An article on the website or in the alumni magazine of the university that a person attended would be acceptable for additional confirmation of facts after enough reliable sourcing had been added to cover off the notability issue — but because he attended that university, and the university might very well grant such "coverage" to alumni who have accomplished something that doesn't pass our inclusion rules, it's not an independent source that can contribute anything toward the question of establishing whether they have the necessary notability to qualify for an article. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 00:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept that this person has a valid and encyclopedic claim of notability if the quality of reliable sourcing were there to properly support it, but no position — not even the presidency of the United States — confers the right to keep a Wikipedia article that relies entirely on primary sources with no actual media coverage anywhere in the citation mix. And if the best anybody can turn up for additional sourcing is an article in the alumni magazine of the university he attended, then that's still not enough to cover the gap between where the sourcing is and where it needs to be. Delete, without prejudice against the creation of a better-sourced version in the future. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2015 (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.