Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Crowley (2nd nomination)

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 of the debate was keep. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul Crowley

Not notable. r3m0t ^talk 14:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - I can't see how this is notable. (Disclaimer: since this is my namesake I may be biased.) — ciphergoth 16:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • To be clear, ciphergoth is named "Paul Crowley", and this article is not about him. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-3 16:09
• Keep. Notability is not a delete criterion, and you have not provided any other criteria for deletion. The content is completely verifiable. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-3 16:07
  • Notability is speedy delete criterion A7 - see WP:CSD. Also see Wikipedia:Deletion of vanity articles. — ciphergoth 16:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Did you even read the vanity page you cited: "people such as college professors or actors may be individually important in society." — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-3 17:10
    • As for the CSD you cite, that is a confusion of the criterion: it is referring to articles that simply talk about a person in a non-important way, such as "Bob Jones was born in 1990. He currently lives in Los Angeles, California, and attends the local high school." Now if it said, "Bob Jones was the boy stuck in a well for 6 weeks in 2001. He currently lives in Los Angeles, California", then the article asserts importance. As for vanity, that refers to articles that are written in a highly positive tone, such as if the article was written by its own subject. Vanity is pretty easy to spot, and this article is definitely not vanity. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-3 17:12
      • The irony is that this article was originally about a different Paul Crowley, the one who writes about Shakespeare. When I challeneged that person's notability, someone Googled for "Paul Crowley" and added information about this other Paul Crowley. When I pointed out the confusion, information about the first one was deleted, leaving only the information about the second. You may draw your own conclusions about what this says about the notability of either party. — ciphergoth 08:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
        • The Shakespearean one may deserve an article as well. I don't know enough about him to write a decent-sized article, but I knew enough about the professor to write the current article. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-6 22:38

• Keep - seems okay to me. Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! ^(Talk!) 09:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Reasonably more than "the average college professor".--Samuel J. Howard 10:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets the "professor test" in WP:BIO and could qualify as an author if any of his books sold more than 5,000 copies. Movementarian 10:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • thanks to all those visiting from WP:VP. I confess I'd sooner have a decision I disagree with than a "no consensus" result. — ciphergoth 13:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A man bold enough to publish books on religious subjects is on par with us at WP who write only articles. More, the books can be of some interest for some (I didn't try them) and they would miss the author's reference. --Harvestman 20:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - User:Brian0918 and others have filled out this article with enough detail that I can now see that this is actually quite a notable person, so changing my vote. Thanks! — ciphergoth 19:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Essexmutant 16:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks good now. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 03:02Z
• keep. A department chair of a major university. Kingturtle 19:30, 15 January 2006 (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.