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. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Albert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Unreferenced BLP regarding non-notable author. Subject has several friends that are active Wikipedia editors, something to consider when reading comments. Gigs (talk) 15:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 13:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added two references to the article, one from the New York Times, the other from a book called Gridlock: Crossword Puzzles and the Mad Geniuses Who Create Them. In addition to writing crosswords, he is reported there as having created the first computer program for generating crosswords. --MelanieN (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for finding those. Pretty minor coverage though. First one is a very brief mention. The second is a little better. Gigs (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources, as Gigs said, are really not going into any depth on the subject, which leaves us where we came in. If we have an article or section of an article on computer-generated crosswords, a namecheck for Mr Albert there seems sensible since MelanieN has found a good source for that. But I'm struggling to see that there's enough here. For a stand-alone piece. Is there a decent smerge target? I couldn't find one although I didn't look very long ... If it can't be smerged it'll have to be deleted, unfortunately. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Coverage is not substantial and falls short of WP:GNG.--PinkBull 02:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of sources. Why was this relisted again? The consensus is clear by now. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:10, 6 March 2010 (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.