Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen H. Rapp Jr

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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen H. Rapp Jr[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

March 2022 PROD expired, tag removed by creator, article's still there, unchanged. Fails WP:GNG, WP:PROF; WP:NACADEMIC - in short, not a notable academic. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and History. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Self-published sources/own website used here, no other sources found. Largely promotional Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which are the sources that I added, self-published sources or the subject's own website? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings User:Oaktree b. Can you please elaborate how Rapp is promotional when he is one of the most wellknown scholars quoted in the western scholarship concerning ancient history? An emperor /// Ave 14:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
His CV and his bio at the University, he's an author on the rest of them I'd assume, unless the articles are about him. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cited two reviews of the subject's work before this discussion even started, and more have been added since. They are clearly not self-published and not his own web site. Why did you claim that no other sources could be found when they were cited before you made that claim? And why do you continue to assume that he is an author when the evidence that he is not is presented in the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because I based my analysis on what was in the article when I "voted", I don't continually hang around pressing refresh waiting for new info to appear. I couldn't find any sources at the time; if you have some, please contribute as this adds to the discussion here. Oaktree b (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I cited two independent reviews in the article before this was even nominated for AfD, well before you "voted". Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Oaktree b for your response. Would you like to reconsider your vote since we all see Rapp is not some self-promotional individual but rather wellrespected scholar in his field? Thank you. An emperor /// Ave 14:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR. There isn't much beyond the book reviews but I think there are enough reviews (multiple in-depth reviews of multiple books) for author notability. Nominator's claim that the article is unchanged since the prod is clearly false: between when the article was prodded and the AfD nomination, some information including book reviews was added. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rapp is one of the most major scholars of ancient Caucasus and Iran, who is massively quoted in the western scholarship. An emperor /// Ave 14:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NAUTHOR rather than WP:NPROF. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Upon reconsideration, he just barely passes the notability bar as explained above; the article badly needs a rewrite. Oaktree b (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Oaktree b: I rewrote the article well before you left this comment, to remove some unsourced and unimportant material and provide the basic facts about his academic career in an encyclopedic style, with more focus on his books. It's a little stubby but not more so than many other biographies of academics here. Are you saying there is something wrong with my rewrite? If so, what? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NPROF. Has several multi-version publications with significant number of citations. Jacona (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2022 (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.