Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leslie Gene Hunter

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 Delete --Haemo 00:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leslie Gene Hunter

Leslie Gene Hunter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Page has been tagged as needing work and had its notability questioned since March 2007. In 7 months, nothing has happened. --MikeVitale 17:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:PROF. LG Hunter has written one book, with his wife, and his journals have been cited by, well, let's say less than 10.--Sethacus 20:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 00:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as a non-notable professor under WP:PROF Bfigura ^(talk) 01:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The first Google hit for the name is this article. There are no news hits for recent news, and none for archived news items. Nearly every retired professor from major Universities will have been published in journals, and even written subject-specific books, but Hunter's have received no significant press coverage. While I highly respect professors and admire their work, I don't believe that every single professor at major colleges would be notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. ^Ariel♥Gold 01:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

*Keep/Weak Keep Weak keep For an article not to have been worked on for three months does not make a subject non-notable. Not every subject has dozen of fans. Not necessarily because of the title, but in practice most full professors at major universities will have done sufficient work to merit an article, retired or not retired. (Usually when they retire is when someone write a biographic notice and we hear of them, but they were notable from their work before that). they don't get in the newspapers, but that's not where their notability lies. their notability lies in their professional work and the acknowledgment by the profession. In particular, he was chair of the department in an unquestionably first-rate research university. Few historians rise to that level--probably less than one in ten college teachers get to a full professorship at universities like Texas A&M--that make him much more notable than the majority of his profession.--quite apart from being the chair. I will say that the chairmanship and the listing of books and articles was not in the inadequate article when it was nominated. But anyone could have found them, in google scholar and in worldCat. However, it must also be said that he worked in a very narrow field, that his publication record seems fairly unspectacular, and that his notability seems to be as much as a teacher and academic administrator as a scholar. DGG (talk) 05:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• • FWIW, Texas A&M-College Station is not the same as Texas A&M University–Kingsville. The former has over 46,000 students and is the main campus of that university. The latter has around 6,500 students, and is a satellite campus of the Texas A&M System. I'm not disagreeing with any of your statements; simply stating a fact... --MikeVitale 13:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

agreed, and therefore I've changed to a week keep. It does explain why the publication record was less than expected--it really would have surprised by for the main university. DGG (talk) 02:51, 5 October 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.