Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Lochhead

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.

The result was keep. John254 02:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] David Lochhead

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

Procedural nomination. This article was speedily deleted on Feb. 26, and was subsequently contested by Gordon Laird on DRV. The discussion closed with a result of overturn and list on AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I do not see much in the way of third-party sources. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Esteffect (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • His published work appears to have been commented upon sufficiently, and has made enough of an impact for his publications, and thus himself as an author to be notable. There's probably a lack of referencing but the individual himself seems notable. Esteffect (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • keep though shear it down. This guy appears to have been an innovator and has published enough and had enough published about him to meet WP:N. Sethie (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Needs work, but he seems to have published enough to meet the requirements, and symposia dedicated to his work would seem to support third-party notability. MSJapan (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can't figure out what the previous editors are referring to regarding his publication record, his innovations, or articles having been written about him. The publications listed on the page seem to be in minor journals or conference proceedings; I'm not sure which if any are peer-reviewed. The only referenced statement about him was from his promotion to emeritus, which happens to most professors when they retire. Have any articles or books been written about his work? RJC Talk Contribs 05:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for now I think. The article establishes, from sources, that the subject has some claim to having made a singular or distinctive contribution. Certainly worth giving the originator more time to work it up, including adding more independent sources and converting the Wikipedia source to the original refs used for that statement in the source article. I believe this has potential, though, taking at face value the statement that "His speech in 1984 Theology in a Digital World is credited with opening a unique branch of thought and study". Obviously we need references to substantiate the importance of this field; if it was only him and half a dozen others then it's not a claim to notability, and I don't actually know of this field myself, but I'm happy to believe it might have been quite significant in its day. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. I guess my worry is that the statement you refer to, and others that would establish notability, are not cited; the footnote to that sentence just tells us where to find the speech. That is, the article asserts notability, but that is only enough for getting it past CSD: to survive, it actually needs to establish that notability. Given, the article has only been around since 22 February 2008, but some sort of reliable source has to be found at some point. RJC Talk Contribs 15:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I think my views on this are fairly well-known: keep and improve works once. If it's not improved in six months, feel free to AfD again. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Professor at major theological school,about a dozen important books, influence on church practices as distinctive contribution. DGG (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Gordon Laird has worked immensely hard to establish the notability (Lochhead is far more notable than a lot of other articles on WP), and has produced sources to back up claims. The editors at AfD voted for an overturn, including myself, so I vote to keep it. PeterSymonds | talk 19:14, 2 March 2008 (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.