Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond Kevorkian

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 keep. Early close as Keep per WP:SNOW (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Kevorkian

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

Article does not meet notability guidelines. No third party reliable sources. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 21:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable historian, recipient of the Armenian Presidential Award: [1], [2], [3] etc. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:49, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's notable, you could search his name in French transliteration - Raymond Kévorkian. Google has 11500 materials on him [4], among them "Armenian Weekly" (calling him "renowned historian"), Macmillan, Gomidas Institute, Amazon, etc. Gazifikator (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Topic passes WP:GNG: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Appears to be an authority on Armenian studies. Cites are not high but are not expected to be in this area. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Vejvančický only. I'm not sure some of the other arguments for keeping are that strong, but Vejvancicky's is. Lord Roem (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vejvanciky Nocturnal781 (talk) 07:03, 2 June 2012 (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.