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 23:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harold H. Buls[edit]

Harold H. Buls (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)

Fails WP:NACADEMIC. Low to no citations on his academic work, and no independent coverage found. I'm sure he was a fine professor, but he's just not notable. schetm (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looks like he and his notes on various Bible verses are reasonably well-known among Lutheran ministers, but until one of them writes a biography on him or collects those notes into an edited volume, it doesn't look like there are any sources for us to use to say that. -- asilvering (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete He would have to pass through WP:GNG as he fails all WP:NACADEMIC criteria considerably. That being said he does not pass WP:GNC with the article in its current form. --Paulstar57 (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2022 (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.