Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugene F. Provenzo

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 of the debate was keep. -- ( drini's _vandalproof page ☎ ) 03:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eugene F. Provenzo

NN, D. ComCat 00:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Notability established in article, verifiable and encyclopedic. StarryEyes 01:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment, I disagree that notability has been established... Right now I see a college professor, which isn't all that notable. However the claim that his work has been "reviewed" in some major publications might be notable. Could the author elaborate a bit? Does this refer to his work being published in these magazines or just mentioned? No vote yet because I think he may be notable, I just would like to see some WP:V evidence.--Isotope23 02:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Geez, how the hell did I miss that link at the bottom? Published enough to meet notability in my book. Keep.--Isotope23 02:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notable per article and moreso per the biography linked in the article. Just needs some more moved from there to here. — mendel ☎ 02:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as notable professor with works on video games. BTW, Comcat could you provide more information in your nominations as per Wikipedia:Deletion policy as to why you think that this item should be deleted as opposed to other action. Capitalistroadster 03:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• K. Kappa 04:41, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete Not notable, simply a professor. If we follow this precedent, ALL university professors would have his or her own entry.--Newyorktimescrossword 05:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, notability established. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment/conditional Keep. I agree with Isotope -- if the article can be expanded on why this guy is important (and if the guy is indeed notable), then yes, he should have an article. Janet13 07:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
  • This AfD could possibly been avoided if the case for notability was better laid out in the actual article. Not all college professors are notable, but those whose research is often cited in mass media, who were the primary authors of widely used textbooks, or who have done other notable things (Professor Jim Cash at Michigan State University co-wrote Top Gun for example) are.--Isotope23 14:19, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• N, K. --rob 09:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. His website shows he's published a significant number of books which makes him a notable author. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As above, and stop spam. Trollderella 16:05, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep based upon the inclusion criteria set forth by WP:BIO. Hall Monitor 17:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The article needs to be expanded. --TantalumTelluride 21:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Nominator made no effort whatsoever to support this nomination. Bryan 00:52, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Having reviewed my vote, it remains keep. This guy's got a string of publications a mile long. Bryan 05:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep notable academic. -- DS1953 ^talk 06:04, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep needs exapansion. I tend to think most tenured professor's are notable enough for inclusion. Klonimus 05:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notability established. He got the NY Times interested, that's a significant achievemant. This article needs to be expanded though. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 01:51, 29 October 2005 (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.