Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William V. Harris

: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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

=[[William V. Harris]]=

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

Failed CSD even though article did not back up its assertions of notability. This person is non-notable and the article lacks references outside of a single website. -- smurdah[citation needed] 17:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Where independent sources exist, a neutral article is possible to write (neutral in the sense of reflecting multiple views on the subject--see wp:npov). Where a neutral article is possible to write, deletion is not appropriate. In this case, the Mellon citation, though rather breathlessly written, seems to be an independent source. I imagine that others exist. Deletion therefore seems inappropriate here. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep While the article may not include reference for it notability a simple google search shows several published books Gnevin (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep perhaps, Speedy Keep. "William R. Shepherd Professor of History, Columbia University" meets WP:PROF, and the books confirm it. This material was already in the article when the speedy tag was placed, including the Bancroft Prize for one of the books. DGG (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, per arguments above. Cazort (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per Gnevin Alpha 4615 (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if I did not get everything right on the first round -- but I have little doubt that WVH should be on Wikipedia. Thanks, ZsV --ZsVarhelyi (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

:ZsVarhelyi we have no intention to WP:Bite you . Sometimes users have content disagreement you did nothing wrong and I hope this will not discourage you Gnevin (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • keep Fellow of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, [http://www.amacad.org/pdfs/alphaList08.pdf] Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep Gnevin's argument is not really valid (it's not publishing books that makes one notable, but the influence/impact that those books have). However, besides that there's the award, named chair, and AAAS Fellowship. Meets multiple criteria of WP:ACADEMIC as nom could easily have checked. I suggest that nom withdraws the nomination to save us all time. --Crusio (talk) 08:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, Ancient literacy, currently in more than 750 libraries worldwide according to [http://www.worldcat.org WorldCat]. Also meets WP:PROF criterion #5 (named chair or distinguished professor appointment).--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2009 (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.