Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Thurm

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. ✗plicit 00:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Thurm

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Kevin Thurm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Article relies entirely on one source which is the website of the foundation which the subject directs. With zero independent sources, fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, England, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless the article sees improvement. He's held roles where it's possible that WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him and his work might exist, so I'm willing to reconsider if somebody with the necessary resources can actually find enough of that to improve the article to a keepable standard, but he hasn't held any role that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG — and since the article has existed for 6.5 years without ever having a whit of GNG-worthy sourcing added at all, we can't simply assume that better sourcing exists than anybody has bothered to show. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable and article itself is very weak. Go4thProsper (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2025 (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.