Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David G. Dalin

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. Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 03:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] David G. Dalin

AfD incomplete, listing now -- Grev 02:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

nn Helzagood 22:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep notable published author. -- Grev 02:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Easily satisfies WP:BIO. Powers 02:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable author, has published extensively.--Alhutch 02:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep published author JasonMilder 02:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Malformed AfD, no reason given, clear consensus per above. -Ikkyu2 05:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, worthless nomination, nominator's activities need to be watched from here on. Charles Matthews 08:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, judging by the publications, seems notable enough. Nominator, are you using "nn" as an euphemism for "I haven't heard of him" or "I don't like him"? JIP | Talk 12:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per above. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-30 13:29Z
• Keep, notable author. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 13:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, no factual reason to delete. Adrian Lamo · (talk) · (mail) · 16:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. At some point I think we need to have a discussion about whether it makes sense to complete AfD nominations that are botched, bad-faith, and clear keeps. This is not to object to Grev's listing it but merely to point out that it's a question that needs to be asked. Chick Bowen 00:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

good point.--Alhutch 00:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• comment, this guy has authored a few books, so does that mean he is worthy of an article on wikipedia? if so, why isn't every university lecturer or professor worthy, because they publish work every few weeks or months?Helzagood 01:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The Myth of Hitler's Pope has sold well, has had a high public profile, and already had a page here. So, not an average academic production. For myself, I would say mapping out academia is a reasonable longer-term aim for WP anyway. Those who write books, rather than papers, are the place to start because people are more likely to want reference information on the author of a book they have. That should be a criterion: do people want to look up this person on WP? In the case of Dalin, the answer is a clear 'yes': a rabbi writes a passionate defence of a pope. Charles Matthews

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.