Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William L. Rowe

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. Kudos to the editors for doing the work to source the article and establish notability instead of relying on someone else to do so. Arkyan • ^(talk) 20:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] William L. Rowe

William L. Rowe (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Despite sources and books, is non-notable. -- Jimmi Hugh 21:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• comment. Eh, what? He is a notable academic by far, I don't know why he has no web presence, probably an old fashioned guy, but he breezes passed the relevant notability criteria. Specifically, "The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources." I think the Nick Trakakis link has enough links to reliable sources to establish this. --Merzul 21:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  On the other hand, and this doesn't happen very often... While he is sufficiently discussed by others, the utter lack of sources originating from the subject, something like a CV, makes it very hard to supply this with some biographical data. --Merzul 21:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks to User:Mwelch, there is now sufficient biographical information for this to be proper stub/start-class bio. --Merzul 01:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per reliable sources and books is notable. feydey 23:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Obviously notable per his books. I also just added some bio info. Mwelch 00:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Nobtability has nothing todo with having published books. --Jimmi Hugh 03:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Um . . . when the book in question is one of the established standards in that particular course of study . . . yes, it does. Mwelch 04:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep we also look at the publisher, and at the reviews. The publisher for the textbook is a leading textbook publisher; the publishers for the more scholarly works are perhaps the two highest quality university presses. Such publishers select the books that the publish on the basis of multiple peer-reviews from leaders in the subject. The acceptance of such a book is a recognition of professional notability. the ones who can best judge make the decision, and we record it. Further the article about his field in the reference work of highest academic standing repeatedly refers to him as expert. DGG 05:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment made by Dr. Nick Trakakis (April 23, 2007): It is difficult to understand the controversy surrounding the entry on William Rowe, for (i) this entry is well-written (although it does require expanding), and (ii) Rowe is widely recognized as one of the foremost contemporary philosophers of religion.

WHAT?? Nick Trakakis, really?? Regarding the controversy here: there is absolutely no controversy! The deletion thing was added very early, and the article was then very short. It is almost certain that this article will be kept. But I'm now going to explore the authenticity of this comment, because I've actually been wanting to create an article about Nick Trakakis :) --Merzul 16:31, 24 April 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.