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 speedy keep. And a ((minnow)) for the OP who, while I can appreciate the desire to help out an IP who can't figure out the AfD process, will I hope check a little deeper next time so they don't get snookered by a trolling IP again. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

James Heilman[edit]

James Heilman (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)

Completing nomination on behalf of IP who said "Dude Is Not Noteworthy Enough to Have a Wiki Article" on the talk page. This nomination is procedural only, I am neutral. Everymorning (talk) 02:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per refs in article which show the obvious WP:N. Suggestion to nominator: next time, wait for the IP to at least ask for assistance. This AfD is trolling and a waste of time. Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 05:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the same reasons as the last time. Plus, the article quite clearly demonstrates notability through significant coverage in just The New York Times alone. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep –  Four big write ups in The Atlantic with Heilman as the lead and authority ((u|Checkingfax)) {Talk} 05:48, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for sure. The person (James Heilman) is for sure sufficiently noteworthy! Is it really necessary to discuss this, based on an anonymous person's comment on the talk page? I find that odd. EvMsmile (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems to be a strong case for speedy keep as per A3 - either the IP is a vandal, or the NOM hasn't properly read the article. JMWt (talk) 08:40, 7 December 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.