Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harold Luntz

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 of the debate was Keep. Tawker 05:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harold Luntz

Last time I made this it was tagged {{nn-bio}} and speedy deleted by Vegaswikian. What do you all say? Richardcavell 11:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment So you are the article author and only contributor and are requesting deletion? You can tag it as speedy deletion. Or is this AfD disruption of Wikipedia to illustrate a point? Weregerbil 11:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I suggested that he should recreate the article, and mentioned that he could put it on AfD to avoid it being speedy deleted again. u p p l a n d 11:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment It should be noted that this version is very different then the article that was speedy deleted. Vegaswikian 19:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. He appears notable from the linked text (even taken into account its character of a speech at a dinner in honour of Luntz). But it appears that both his Torts: Cases and Commentary and his Assessment of Damages for Personal Injury and Death have been published in at least four editions. It seems likely that he would even pass the notability guideline for authors ("Published authors, editors, and photographers who have written books with an audience of 5,000 or more or in periodicals with a circulation of 5,000 or more"). u p p l a n d 12:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per u p p l a n d. He's a distinguished academic who has written some of the standard legal texts in Australia. I'd be very surprised if they haven't sold 5000+ copies. Also was a full professor at Uni. Melb., one of Australia's most prestigious universities. But for the record, I'll add the disclaimer that he was my torts lecturer. Metamagician3000 12:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Surely passes the academics notability guidelines; yes, the article needs explansion (a list of published works would be nice, for instance), but that is not a reason to delete. Batmanand | Talk 15:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems notable enough. Article needs work, but don't they all? RicDod 16:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, the article describes a notable individual. Yamaguchi先生 18:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough for mine. Quoted often in legal circles and occasionally in the media. Capitalistroadster 18:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm mystified that this was considered speediable. Reyk YO! 20:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 18:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Google turns-up a number of Supreme Court (of Australia) rulings that appear to be regarding international law issues (though I could be wrong since IANAL). -- MarcoTolo 20:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Admittedly I'm going primarily by the article itself and the content of the tribute it links to. While I'd like to see stronger verification/sourcing, I'd say he's notable enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep per Uppland. Monicasdude 22:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. A Professor and Dean of the Faculty at the University of Melbourne is certainly notable. Note to those from US. Professor in Australia is equivalent to named chairs in the US. Associate Professor in Australia is equivalent to Professor in the US. Associate Professor in the US is equivalent to Senior Lecturer or Lecturer in Australia. --Bduke 23:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems easily notable enough. -- I@n ≡ talk 02:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per everyone. --Canley 04:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable. -- Synapse 23:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or possibly speedy keep as per WP:SNOW. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per *. JeffBurdges 14:51, 4 May 2006 (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.