Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Laird

: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 Keep per consensus, the absence of deletion !votes outside of the nominator, and DGG's pointing out that the subject meets WP:AUTHOR requirements. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

=[[Paul Laird]]=

:{{la|Paul Laird}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Laird}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Paul Laird}})

Very poorly-sourced BLP of an apparently non-notable "musicologist" from Kansas University. Doesn't appear to meet WP:ACADEMIC either. Unit Anode 22:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Question I haven't done enough research to comment on notability, but why is "musicologist" in quotes? That's a real term, and he is a real professor in his field. [http://arts.ku.edu/~sfa/music/faculty/lairdpaul/index.shtml] Zagalejo^^^ 23:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
:Simply because I wasn't exactly sure if that put him in the "music" category, or the "academic" category, or both. I didn't mean them as scare quotes, and I'll remove them if they're bothering you. Unit Anode 01:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
::OK, thanks for the explanation. You don't have to remove the quotes; I just wanted to make sure you weren't casting doubt on his credentials. Zagalejo^^^ 07:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Comment W. T. Kemper Fellowship for Teaching Excellence is a recognised academic award, however may not be sufficient for WP:ACADEMIC Rotovia (talk) 00:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Question Are the publications irrelevant to WP:ACADEMIC? I really don't know that guideline well, so I can't say whether he's the very model of a modern musicologist. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Weak keep per directorship, many publications, positive 3rd party review. LotLE×talk 00:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Keep co-ed. of a major reference work such as The Cambridge Companion to the Musical indicates that he is regarded as on of the authorities in his subject. Ifanyone prefers to regard this as notability according to WP:AUTHOR, most notable academics in the humanities meet the criteria for both. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Weak keep. General notability from news reports. Are there records of concert performances? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC).
Keep per DGG.--Milowent (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

: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.