Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhys Williams, sociologist

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The result was Keep (nomination withdrawn) in light of improvements and new information. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Williams, sociologist[edit]

Insufficient content to provide context for notability. Although probably not a vanity/ self-promotional piece, a brief search reveals no qualifying claims for notability under WP:N, WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 17:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My main reason for producing this piece is that after I had created the article on Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, in which I said that this man had formerly being editor of this journal, some one had put the square brackets around the name "Rhys Williams". This had the unfortunate consequence of inappropriate wiki-linking, as the link took one to other people with that name. If we are to delete the article, can I please insist that the brackets in the article on Journal for Scientific Study on Religion around the name "Rhys Williams" get removed? Please note - I do not think we should delete the article on Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, as this is one of the world's leading journals for psychology, sociology and anthropology of religion. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not only entitled, but actually encouraged to correct errors such as inappropriate wikilinking by bold editing. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Essentially a case of a person notable for one thing only. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definite Keep , ~~Possibly keep~~ pending a check on whether he is in fact notable otherwise, which is likely. Many such editors are, & editorship of a major journal is a major consideration in WP:PROF. It would be very unusual for a person to attain that position without a very considerable reputation in the profession The academic world doesn't normally work that way.

I've actually checked; finding the middle initial helped--there are a great many people named R Williams, and academic sources in the humanities often avoid full first names. it turns out that the incompetent article entered in Wikipedia was presumably prepared from a old table of contents of the journal of which he was editor. he;'s not an Instructor--He's a full professor at the University of chicago. He has written two very widely held books, considering the subject--found in several hundred libraries., and cited by a good number of other publications; he has also written at least a few dozen journal articles--all this from just the Google sand worldCat. -- I've added these to the article here The Wikipedia editor is of course primarily responsible for this--but the nominator should have at least done a preliminary check. DGG (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Even has 23 gnews hits including reviews of books, well cited academic, journal editor.John Z (talk) 06:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definite keep per DGG. Article needs cleanup, updating, and expanding. --Crusio (talk) 10:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Editorship of JSSR is sufficient to meet WP:PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment at the end of the Afd, move to Rhys H. Williams. with the middle init ial there is no need for the profession to disambiguate. DGG (talk) 21:30, 28 September 2008 (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.