Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Private Eye Project

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC(talk) 06:43, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Private Eye Project (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)

Not enough independent sources. Some sources are directly from The Private Eye Project or from Kerry Ruef, its founder.

  • The Ed.uab.edu source is from attendees of a Private Eye talk.
  • The Stone and Barlow book is a collection of essays including one by Ruef about Private Eye.
  • The Microscopy Today source is an article by Ruef.

Other sources just briefly mention Private Eye as something that exists. One is a defunct storefront. The only independent sources that have something notable to say about Private Eye are the WBHM article and possibly the book by Robert Bernstein, which I don't have. There isn't enough here to write a neutral article. Truthnope (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2025 (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.