Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Smaldone
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
- William Smaldone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing in the article show that this person fulfils the requirements of WP:PROF; in particular, being a member of a local council does not confer notability. Rodhullandemu 22:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete- Her is a professor, and a local politician. I don't see anything to indicate that he meets WP:PROF. Checking news coverage, there doesn't seem to be anything beyond some local coverage so I don't see that WP:POLITICIAN is met either. -- Whpq (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2011 (UTC)- Keep - Thanks to Msrasnw for finding the book reviews. I am satisfied that multiple reviews of his book in academic journals is sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete i agre with Whpq User:Lucifero4
- Keep: Seems to me a clear pass of WP:Author #3 The person has created a .. significant or well-known work .. that has been the subject of ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. I have added 5 reviews in academic journals of his Rudolf Hilferding: The Tragedy of a German Social Democrat (Msrasnw (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)) PS: Added 4 reviews for Confronting Hitler
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Msrasnw (talk) 16:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep-- Enough references to establish notability. --Jsayre64 (talk) 00:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- OK, I accept Msrasnw's research; but this is an object lesson in establishing notability. It really does need to be done right up front to avoid unnecessary deletion nominations, and it is up to the article creator to show that. It should not be assumed that the goodwill of other editors is spread so broadly that every such article is open to rescue by uninterested parties. Rodhullandemu 00:22, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Appears to fail WP:PROF. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Question WP:Prof includes this This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH etc.: it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines. Isn't his notability via WP:Author clear? (Msrasnw (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2011 (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.