Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifford Orwin

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 per clear consensus and nominator withdrawal. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clifford Orwin

Clifford Orwin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

I feel really guilty about AfDing this page, as it's really well written and the author said it was their first article (in the edit summary); but on detailed perusal of WP:PROF, Professor Orwin doesn't seem to qualify. My apologies to the creator of this page; nothing personal. Walton monarchist89 17:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, no sources showing the guy is anything special RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• comment - two academic books by him on Amazon. Neither are in the top million titles. Average Earthman 18:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Prod • This article was only minutes old when nominated for deletion. Give it some time to mature, and if it isn't good by then, then we can delete it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep (but needs radical improvement). There is no question that Clifford Orwin is notable. Per the proposed guideline, he has published a significant and well-known academic work (The Humanity of Thucydides, Princeton University Press, 1994), which has been "the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews." (L'Année philologique lists 17 reviews in scholarly journals, plus a review in the Times Literary Supplement.) The problem with the article is that it's not an article on the notable scholar qua notable scholar, it's an article on a non-notable figure in political controversies. In such a case isn't policy to keep it but mark it for cleanup? Wareh 20:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There has to be a reason to get a Guggenheim, I think. What is more, there seems to be plenty of interesting stuff about him (qua Canadian neocon/Straussian) that might be added. Charles Matthews 20:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Orwin is full professor at a major research university, the University of Toronto, and has been a Guggenheim Fellow. His book The Humanity of Thucydides is referenced in two of Wikipedia's articles (History of the Peloponnesian War and Thucydides; I just added links to this article there). I was about to add something about reviews I had found of that book, but after edit-conflicting, I see that this has already been done by Wareh above. up◦land 20:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, following additional information as provided above. Average Earthman 22:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for all the reasons given above Johnbod 23:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:PROF, notable cultural impact beyond academia documented in the article. Pete.Hurd 03:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems clear to me that he meets the notability guidelines for academics as detailed by others above. --Bduke 03:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
• Withdrawing nomination - article has been improved massively since I AfD'd it. Now provides more evidence of notability. Walton monarchist89 17:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 02:20, 22 January 2007 (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.