Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen A. Kent

: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. Seddσn talk|[http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page WikimediaUK] 16:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

=[[Stephen A. Kent]]=

:{{la|Stephen A. Kent}} ([{{fullurl:Stephen A. Kent|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen A. Kent}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Finishing unfinished nom for User:Little Professor, seems Twinkle conked out. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Why should this page be deleted? Notability is borderline but I can't see any other big problems. Triplestop (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep It's not even mentioned in the article, but he was involved in a fairly serious plagiarism case involving an article in The Independent: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/dec/28/broadcasting.highereducation]. He is quoted by the NY Times: [http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/01/us/distrust-clearwater-special-report-death-scientologist-heightens-suspicions.html?pagewanted=2] about scientology, and ABC news: [http://abcnews.go.com/entertainment/story?id=2352384&page=1], in fact, he's very often quoted about scientology in news sources, including some high profile ones: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Stephen+Kent%22+scientology&btnG=Search&hl=en&ned=us&um=1&scoring=a]. Even though the number of hits here is modest, the nature of them seem to make him almost a public figure: he seems to be one of the most authoritative academics studying Scientology, from my searches. The current article is bad, but I'd like to see it improved, not deleted. Cazort (talk) 19:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep There is a lot of room for improvement. Stephen Kent seems to be a respected scientist in the field of the sociology of religion. This is not borderline of notability, this may be a good and interesting reading, useful for the readers. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Per above Triplestop (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, cited in [http://books.google.com/books?q=%22stephen+a.+kent%22+sociology&btnG=Search+Books 90 books], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22stephen+a.+kent%22+sociology&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search 80 scholarly sources], as well as multiple other WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability is not in question; the subject passes WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Arguments against the subject's general notability seem a little 'stretched' to me; but as long as this article does not reflect the well documented allegations regarding this scholar's purported methodological biases by many of his peers, this article will continue to resemble a non-npov resume in my opinion. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Posted some possible sources for use in the article, to the AfD talk page, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stephen A. Kent. (Also placed them on the article's talk page.) Cirt (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Kent is respected professor of sociology and religious persuasion. He is well spoken; his work is researched and referenced. This entry appears to be a resume as much as anything else, and likely duplicates content of his professional website at the University of Alberta. However, such duplication should not be a cause to remove this entry. If someone would like to add a comment regarding a controversial issue from Kent's past, they may open such discussion. One controversy in someone's past is not enough justification to remove them from Wikipedia's list of professionals, rather such would be good reason to keep the person listed in Wikipedia with a discussion of said controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimari03 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC) — Gimari03 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (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.