This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
Being more of an inclusionist than a deletionist, I'm not going to jump the gun and nominate this for AFD yet. However, I would suggest that, without further citations following WP:N guidelines, Vidmar is not any more notable than many tens of thousands of associate professors in the United States. Heck, I doubt that we have an article on every full professor in the U.S. let alone articles on the multitudes of associate professors.
In summary, what is Vidmar's "claim to fame"? Is "provincial archivist" so important a position that it warrants a Wikipedia article for the holder of the title?
For Christian, especially Catholic Historians, he is notable and a respected expert because of his work to present the Catholic side of history during the Reformation. I have orders Smithsonian Associates magazine so I can use it as a ref for his talks at the Smithsonian on church history. He was interviewed by NBC for his book on the DaVinci Code. I'm not sure of the name of the program they were doing but he was the Catholic expert historian they consulted to get the Catholic side of the story. I am not sure that it is fair to delete this guy without allowing me more than one day to get more sources. I would appreciate a little fair time here. What's the rush anyway? I just created the page last night. NancyHeise (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
No rush. You will note that I asked here first rather than rushing to nominate it for deletion. I just wanted to raise the flag that it wasn't obvious to me that he was notable. After reading guideline for notability of academics, I will leave it to others to argue whether he is notable or not. Looks to me like he is but I am not knowledgeable enough to judge. --Richard (talk) 04:04, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
And I appreciate your tactfulness in approching the issue. Very good form. I would not have created the page if I did not feel he was notable and I appreciate that you find him notable too. Thanks! NancyHeise (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)