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. I see a consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Meltzer[edit]

Jack Meltzer (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)

Lots of assertions that he is significant as an academic and planner, but no evidence he meets threshold. Boleyn (talk) 11:39, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Social science, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Does seem to have been a notable academic and planner. Full length obituary in the Chicago Tribune: [1]. The University of Texas at Dallas issues their own obituary: [2]. (It's not independent, but WP:NACADEMIC does not require independent sources.) Often mentioned or discussed in scholarship about urban planning in Chicago, e.g. [3], [4], [5], [6]. His book Metropolis to Metroplex received several scholarly reviews: [7], [8], [9]. He and his firm are discussed extensively in this doctoral dissertation: [10]. Jfire (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appears to be a person of significance and finding references from 1950s-1960s is probably not easy given that those were pre-digital media times. BulgarianCat (talk) 07:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Subject is clearly notable per sources already in the article in addition to Explicit's argument. The real problem is that great swaths of the article are copyvio from the cited Hyde Park Journal obit. Central and Adams (talk) 17:39, 20 February 2024 (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.