Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Seifert

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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Seifert[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparently run-of-the-mill university teacher, no assertion of notability. Emeraude (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as you say is just a run of the mill university lecturer. Article creator appears to be a fan of his, possibly an ex student? Seasider91 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Noted author and professor. His work has been cited and discussed in reliable sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Emeraude (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking up the name on google brings up very few relevant results, most of the sources that are relevant to the man are via his institution and several I suspect are created by the man himself such as his linked in profile, defiantly not notable, do not see these independent sources that Candleabracadabra speaks of. In fact most of the google hits relates to a street of the same name. Seasider91 (talk) 19:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm really wondering how you come to the conclusion that a (full) professor at an Ivy League uni is a "run-of-the-mill university teacher". His books are held by several hundred libraries around the world: Works by or about Lewis Carl Seifert in libraries (WorldCat catalog). A quick google search also turns up several reviews of his works in refereed journals (Modern Philology, Eighteenth-Century Fiction, Modern Language Notes, The English Historical Review, and probably a lot more). Don't know what you've been searching for. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with User:Axolotl Nr.733. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 20:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I simply put in Lewis Seifert into google and found very few results Seasider91 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article says he is "a professor" not "the Professor" so suggesting he is just a university teacher in the American use of the word "professor". That does not make him notable under Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Emeraude (talk) 08:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he holds the department chair, if that matters to you. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment So you're saying we should make all department heads at all universities of notability a Wikipedia page? What absolute nonsense as you know full well that the head of say the head of the faculty of biochemistry at Oxford Professor Mark Sansom would not merit an article just like this guy doesn't. Seasider91 (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - not nonsense at all. It would be a definite advance to be able to use a fixed criterion, such as possession of a professorial chair, as it would save a great deal of this sort of borderline discussion.Eustachiusz (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you're referring to this Mark Sansom, there's no doubt he would easily be considered notable based on his citation numbers alone. And no, that's not what I'm saying, all I did was making a factual comment concerning the article subject's academic position. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews:[1] (Eighteenth-Century Studies), [2] (Journal of the History of Sexuality, a part of the review visible in the scan at the bottom), [3], (The English Historical Review), [4] (French Studies), [5] (Modern Language Notes), [6] (Renaissance Quarterly), [7] (Men and Masculinities) etc etc. I'm sure that editors with access to JSTOR can find out far more. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Doesn't seem to be a straight GNG pass. I'm personally good with auto-keeping full professors who are department chairs, as the subject is, but this is not the way the SNG for academics is currently written, I don't think. Carrite (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources presented by Vejvančický, views of the authors works, constitute more than adequate sourcing to meet WP:GNG. I'm a bit confused by Carrite's view, but perhaps I'm missing some problem with those sources. --j⚛e decker ^talk 01:48, 29 May 2014 (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.