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. SoWhy 14:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Raab[edit]

Nathan Raab (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)

No clear demonstration of notability. Struggling to find any independent in-depth coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Edwardx (talk) 00:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - Probably WP:TOOSOON. However he probably will be notable if current coverage level continues for a couple of years. This one is relatively in depth - [1]. Aside from that he's got lots and lots of mentions in relations to sales/discoveries of historical documents. If I had found another in-depth article on Raab himself (by a higher caliber source than jewishexponent) I probably would've flipped this to weakish keep.Icewhiz (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - looking at google news (and newspapers.com), most mentions are of Nathan as an employee/spokesman of the Raab Collection. To me, that organization seems more suitable for an article at this time. Nathan Raab could redirect to an article on that organization. Smmurphy^(Talk) 15:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Raab Collection (apparently his family company) is a red link. I would prefer us to have an article on that, if anything. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2017 (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.