Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Steckley

Add links
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 to keep the article.

John Steckley[edit]

John Steckley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No evidence presented he meets criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (academics), discussed on his talk page Talk:John Steckley with both editors agreeing he likely doesn't meet notability. — raeky (talk | edits) 07:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just compared both articles - the Huron language article and the one being considered for deletion. I think there's a definite case for transferring the relevant part of Steckley's bio to that page, as he is obviously very closely linked to Wyandot/Huron languages and their culture, and it sounds like he's saved the language from being completely forgotten. So perhaps redirect the page to Wyandot language with a summary of Steckley's contributions to the subject on that page?Mabalu (talk) 17:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The person rescuing or trying to rescue a language is notable. Better sources would help, as well as some explanation of the items in the bibliography..DGG (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That info should be presented on that language's page (which it is), but if that's all hes done does that qualify him as notable under the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics)? I think it would be a stretch. — raeky (talk | edits) 18:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wyandot language. Individual fails our academic notability test, but his efforts could be usefully added to that article. (As a small point of clarification, can you really rescue a language that is extinct, which Huron has been for a hundred + years at least?) Eusebeus (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG.Broadweighbabe (talk) 03:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rescuing a language definitely qualifies him as notable under criteria #1 of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). --H8erade (talk) 03:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." Find the reliable sources that this language has made a significant impact in his discipline and I'll agree with you. But I don't think those exist. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing qualifies him as notable except for notability. Unless he's actually been the subject of independent sources, it doesn't matter what he's done.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above keeps. Seems like he is the world expert in a small field. Gnews hits like- the Toronto Star article about him cited in the article, book review like [1] go toward satisfying WP:BIO (answering User:Prosfilaes's objection) or WP:PROF #7. Gscholar results don't show many citations, but I think this just shows its defects in the humanities. [2] also goes toward WP:BIO and mentions:"His best-selling book came with Full Circle: Canada’s First Nations written with fellow Bolton resident, Bryan Cummins whose specialty is the Cree nation. This introduction to Canada’s first peoples has sold over 10,000 copies and is used in College and University courses across Canada.", which goes toward WP:PROF #4 (see note 12). About 100 good gbooks hits show he is quite respected in his field. e.g. [3], [4] and [5] apparently a book review which ends " It belongs in every academic library as well. John Steckley has contributed an essential work to the field." He was also president of the Ontario Archaeological society in the 90s.[6] . John Z (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice collection of sources, I wasn't aware of all the resources you used to do the search. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think if there is reliable sources that his books are used as text books in major universities that might qualify him for notability. Regardless the page needs serious work. In light of all the references presented by John Z, I withdraw my AfD and request a speedy keep. He likely does scape by and is notable enough for his own page with all his published books and positions hes held. — raeky (talk | edits) 05:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because of Prosfilaes' delete comment, I think we can't do a speedy close. But this seems to be headed for a keep regardless, so likely the point will soon be moot. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Steckley&oldid=1069994082"