Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Bushnell

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 no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure) Michaelzeng7 (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bushnell

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG. Googling suggests they don't exist. Sources offered are all WP:PRIMARY or otherwise unsuitable. Msnicki (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As documented in the GNU Hurd page, the Hurd is historically significant project because its development delays spurred the adoption of Linux. The primary sources are being used to document the straightforward fact that Mr. Bushnell was its founder and project leader for 12 years, which should qualify him for non-temporary notability. — Efrenmanes (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 04:21, 12 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 18:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously notable. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be helpful if you could point us at the sources you rely on, rather just asserting WP:ITSNOTABLE. Msnicki (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2013 (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.