Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Garber Drushal

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 no consensus. WjBscribe 01:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J. Garber Drushal

Finsh the sentence: "You know you've been on Wikipedia for too long when..." I found this article in the uncategorized pages. It has all the standard problems for an article on a marginally notable person written by a newbie. User:MER-C, our trusty deletionist, prodded it ten days ago. Then, User:DGG, our resident inclusionist, removed the prod, saying he was the president of a notable college. I'm on the fence - clean up or delete? - so I decided to bring it here. Yes, you know you've been on Wikipedia for too long when you recognize AFD voting patterns in the edit summaries within an article history. :) YechielMan 06:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, college presidents are generally notable. --Dhartung | Talk 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: ... not absent meeting any of the requirements of WP:V, WP:BIO or the prof test. There is no wide name recognition, no evidence of awards or honors, and there are no sources whatsoever. RGTraynor 15:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 17:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. College presidents are generally notable, but this article needs sources and verification. Realkyhick 19:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Subject noteable. Article needs Proper sources. It also needs categories. I don't understand why necessary tags were removed here The article is only 2.5 weaks old. It needs traffic to increase its chance of being sourced properly since the original editor seems to be someone who got bored while reading an alumni mag. I am going to retag. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I also added stubs. Hopefully, this article will get noticed and sourced. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. College presidents are usually notable and he did publish in the Journal of Higher Education. I added some information and sources to the article and will next add categories.-Gloriamarie 00:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one is licking the bottom of the notability barrel... even after cleaning. - BierHerr 02:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep if it can be properly sourced - iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the additional material added and sourced since the AfD has served to convince me that he's not notable. If the best you can say about his academic accomplishments is "he wrote an article once in 1954 and another time in 1968", he's not notable. And while I agree that university presidents are often notable, and this university's president R. Stanton Hales appears clearly notable, I don't see president of a university that's smaller than many high schools to be sufficient by itself in the absence of any other evidence of notability. —David Eppstein 00:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. Pete.Hurd 20:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Someone who served as the president of a college for 10 years in such an interesting era as 1967-1977 has got to have been interesting, and more than tangentially mentioned in many reliable sources, though probably not a whole heck of a lot on the internet. The president of a university is a public figure whose decisions impact many people: not accepting that as notability is ridiculous. This should stay: it's in need of expansion, not deletion. And the level of sourcing seems just fine to me for now. Mango juice^talk 21:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.