Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen H. Webb
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 -Djsasso (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Stephen H. Webb
This one is tough to decide if it is notable at first glance. A quick search on Google finds plenty of primary source material, mostly articles and books written by the subject. However, I was unable to find any substantial secondary source material, meaning he fails WP:BIO as an author. Additionally, I believe he fails WP:PROF, as I cannot find any independent sources asserting his significance in his field. He doesn't seem to have won any awards, he hasn't really originated any new concepts. Non-notable in general. Redfarmer (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep as this is a borderline case. Majoreditor (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wikipopuli. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheYellowCabin (talk • contribs) 03:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. This is one of many articles apparently started by Webb's co-author on a book, Nathan Braun. Like many activists, Braun created articles on every project and colleague. However his own beleif in the importance of these topics hasn't matched our own and many have been deleted or merged. I agree with t nominator that this subject hasn't met any of the standard notability requirements. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak Keep as he has published through the Oxford University Press, which may not be evidence of notability, but suggests this. His books seem to have been reviewed by respectable publications - see [1] and [2], but I am not an expert in this field, and cannot vouch for the quality of these sources. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep I agree with the above poster. ― LADY GALAXY 14:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Nine books, two books by OUP are way better than the majority of professors. and there apparently are reviews of at least some of them. COI is irrelevant if the figure is notable. OUP is better able to judge whether a scholar is important enough for their imprint than we can judge notability ourselves in Wikipedia. (for what its worth, I am not quite certain that Nathan Braun himself is notable) DGG (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Weak keep per DGG. Hobit (talk) 21:29, 17 January 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.
