Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Mithen

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 as passing WP:PROF. One minor typo noted. Bearian 23:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steven Mithen

Steven Mithen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

No assertion of notability of subject, and article was created to create a false sense of notability in order to violate WP:POINT in order to support OR and synthesis by this article's creator in Origin of religion. MSJapan 17:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The person is a noted archaeologist and meets all the standards of notability required for wikipedia. Muntuwandi 18:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do continue and explain to us how and why he is notable.PelleSmith 18:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not voting here because on principle I don't like the idea of judging entry contents based on the behavior of editors. However, the creation of this entry was disruptive and the existence of entries like it, when created under these circumstances will only continue to cause problems for Wikipedia. We don't want to establish a precedent for editors to create entries in order to buttress a point. Likewise, entries like this one might get the axe because of the disruptive behavior that begot them without being judged fairly by those who could actually determine the notability of the subject. I sure can't in this instance. I wonder if the proper route here is not to delete the entry but to look into the disruptive pattern of editing from whence it came.PelleSmith 18:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I know nothing about the aforementioned edit wars, but this person doesn't seem to pass the WP:PROF test. Cap'n Walker 19:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• comment I don't think you have read the article, he actually meets all of the requirements. Mithen BooksMuntuwandi 19:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. —David Eppstein 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Whether the article was created to "buttress a point or not" that offers no rationale for deletion. (Buttressing substantive points is what we do, by providing sourcing and context. WP:POINT refers to disruptive activity.) The individual seems notable whether or not his positions are considered mainstream: A dialog in the New York Review of Books is a very high indicator of notability to me. Additionally there are reviews in American Scientist and Edge Magazine all on the first page of google results. There doesn't seem to be any real question of notability. Please handle your issues in the other article through standard procedures. --Dhartung | Talk 11:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep He has quite a number of books over many years, several of them very well-known, and copublished in the US by Harvard University Press. I added the others from WorldCat, and sorted out his other recent publications. His four best known books are each held in many hundreds of public and academic libraries. Three of his books have been translated into other languages, including Spanish, Japanese and Turkish, a further indication of notability. As Dhartung says, if an article is challenged because of lack of a notable proponent, showing its proponent is conventionally notable is a perfectly reasonable response. Indeed, nominating that author for deletion is what seems to me rather closer to POINT. DGG (talk) 05:21, 14 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.