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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Warnken

[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet any of the nine criteria for an academic to be notable. References are weak, and I'm unable to find anything else that would prove notability. A conflict of interest regarding the original author is suspected. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only 6 cites on GS. Far too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO both. Could've been speedied at A7, but I gather that the speedy was contested. Ray^Talk 08:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. A teacher with a PhD, and that seems to be it. Should have been speedy-deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged CSD, but erring on the side of caution I contested it! --Kudpung (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and previous rationales.--Kudpung (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF, or any other claim of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2010 (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.