Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Juravich

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. — JIP | Talk 09:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Juravich

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning was Just because he is a college professor does not mean that he rates his own page. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

• If you are concerned that this subject doesn't deserve its own article, then the answer is to merge the useful content into a more comprehensive article and redirect, not deletion, as per the deletion policy. RudolfRadna 28 December 2005

• I've taken the liberty of reformatting your edit to be consistent with the list style used on Afd nominations. It makes it easier to track the conversation. Crypticbot is a bot that lists orphaned Afd nominations. He's not the one who actually placed the Afd in the first place so your comment is misplaced. Also, it is good etiquette to mention that you were the creater of the article when participating here. -- JLaTondre 02:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• I'll keep that in mind in the future; I'm not sure if I've participated in a page delete discussion before. I realized after typing in the recommendation for a merge if there was an issue with the page that it was actually a bot, but I was really just concerned with avoiding a delete of what could be a useful page for people studying this aspect of the workplace, so I left the comment as it was. I have no problem with putting a footnote about this topic on some sociology page if that's what people want. But I do think it is wrong to misuse the deletion policy because, whether intended or not, it can amount to censorship of the diversity of information available via wikipedia. I'm not 100% sure I understand all of the criteria behind deletion, and I know some people on wikipedia are deletionists and kind of want to run around deleting things (maybe not quite what deletionism is all about. . . ), but my personal impression is if the content serves a valid informational purpose, it shouldn't be deleted; particularly where, if there was a compliant that the subject doesn't deserve a seperate page, the protocol recommends just putting it into a subsection of another page.

RudolfRadna 05:06 29 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Amazon shows 4 books (3 of them in print & available new), 2 CDs, and 1 digital download available for Juravich. Since the criteria for authors is only 5000 readers, I have to give him the benifit of the doubt that he's hit that with 4 books (especially given that 3 are still available new). That said, the article needs to be tagged for clean-up and the links on the book titles should be deleted as they aren't notable enough for there own articles. -- JLaTondre 02:04, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep he's published books so he's safe under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Precedents#Education. --Pboyd04 02:07, 29 December 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.