Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Beckerleg

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. Davewild (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don Beckerleg

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

Apparently not notable by our standards. Two in-house awards from his employer, one minor, one perhaps less so, are not enough to justify his inclusion here. One hit on Scholar. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 13:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article doesn't indicate any claim for notability, no independent coverage, just another recently deceased engineer, Wikipedia is WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Kraxler (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be an article created by a family member, clearly a good guy who worked hard but nothing that makes him stand out from the crowd and makes him notable enough for an article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:36, 7 July 2015 (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.