Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William H. Brackney
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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The result was Keep: nomination withdrawn (non-admin cliosure). Whpq (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- William H. Brackney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Person's notability is uncertain. I deleted the speedy delete tag, as it doesn't meet that criteria, but a delete might still be justified thru AfD D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – I just searched and found 20 references to him in other Wikipedia articles, so I’ve linked them to the article. I've added a list of over a dozen books he authored. In adding references to the article, it became clear to me that he satisfies several of the WP:ACADEMIC criteria, so I have no doubts about my recommendation to keep this article. I should add that I have no connection with Dr Brackney or any of the subject matter of the article. The AfD nomination was useful because the article at that stage was insufficiently referenced, making it impossible to verify his notability. I hope that the work I've done this morning is sufficient to settle the matter. Do feel free to reply if any concerns remain. Regards — Hebrides (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Endowed, named chair at a respected college, meets WP:ACAD. Vrivers (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Concur with the above, meets at least two points of WP:ACADEMIC. -- BenTels (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Meets WP:ACADEMIC #5, and #6 (if being dean and principal count), probably #1, and possibly another or two. The article could use more third party RSs, but this seems like a pretty clear keep to me. Novaseminary (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as above, particularly per Vrivers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I presume that "Distinguished professor" in Canada is similar to professor in UK (not a mere lecturer as in USA). The article lists a number of books publihsed by academic publishers: this is quite enough to make him notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Distinguished Professor" in Canada is similar to "Distinguished Professor" in the US, and the process of being named distinguished is less formal that in Europe. But please continue to make the point about UK lecturers versus US professors in other AfD discussions. Abductive (reasoning) 18:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Named distinguished professorship with a cartload of comprehensive books on Baptism. I hope the nominator does not become discouraged from finding and nominating pages on non-notable professors for deletion; they are plentiful. Abductive (reasoning) 18:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I didn't nominate for bragging rights, you know :) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 00:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep - I don't normally withdraw nominations (doing so potentially constitutes one user overruling all of Wiki), but in this case I will. The article was written by a new user and improperly nominated for speedy delete, and now this. This new user wrote a good first article and didn't deserve this treatment. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:15, 13 October 2010 (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.