Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Gauntlett

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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 03:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Gauntlett

David Gauntlett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Questionable notability (WP:PROF would be relevant; also autobiography and, I would contend (sorry), vanity. kingboyk 16:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Not exactly an autobiography or vanity - the subject himself has made two edits, but the rest of the work is by other editors. WP:PROF are guidelines only. It seems to me that a Professor in a UK university (i.e. a head of a department, not just a teacher as is implied by 'professor' in the US) has, by his position alone, a measure of notability. List of works also seems quite impressive. Add to that the controversy mentioned in the article and I think he passes. Emeraude 17:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The article was created by a "friend" on an anon IP. There seems to be an element of overstating importance here, but if you disagree fine. I'm not seeing much in the way of quality sources though... --kingboyk 17:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Successful academic who has gained quite a bit of popular press attention for his research (note range of years for the news stories: 1995, 2000, 2002, 2006...) The article appears to be reasonably balanced, neither too much of a stub nor a complete cv — it should probably be rewritten to focus less on Gauntlett's primary sources and more on secondary sources, but those secondary sources exist, so that should not be a problem. —David Eppstein 20:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep AUTO and similar guidelines are reasons why it is relatively unlikely that a good article is written, and reasons why notability might possibly be overstated, not reasons for deletion. A person is notable (or not) regardless of the quality of the article or who wrote it DGG 23:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable, passes wp:prof. --Buridan 09:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: the notability of the subject is hugely enhanced by the quality of the reviews of his many books which are linked to. --Myke Cuthbert 16:13, 9 May 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.