Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel P. Franklin

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. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:54, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel P. Franklin[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking non-trivial support. Fails WP:PROF. reddogsix (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Apparently meets WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF -- multiple books. What is lacking is the article-- he is the author of 5 significant books, the most widely in over 400 copies a/c WorldCat. I've added the others to the article. I;'vee also added some of the reviews. . This is an strong publishing record for an asociate professor; if I had not checked worldcat, I would be !voting delete. DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was the editor who removed the CSD:A7 template from this article as the article contained a Claim of Notability under WP:PROF - the existence of a claim (the guidance doesn't require the assessment of the strength of the claim) is all that is required to rule out a speedy deletion and my removal of the CSD template was purely to enable an assessment of the strength of the claim to take place before the article was deleted. I'm now in favour of the permanent retention of this article as there are claims for notability under both WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR. As stated in the comment by DGG, the article itself is very weak, requiring a lot of work. I was the editor who tagged this article with Notability, Conflict of Interest and RefImprove templates but I do not consider these issues to be grounds for its deletion. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, in my opinion you did right to remove the A7 speedy.And after you removed the speedy, a tag was placed for the different reason G11, entirely promotional , I removed that one, saying "Factual; not entirely promotional " This is the sort of article that needs discussion. DGG ( talk ) 14:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just needs proper sourcing and a rewrite for encyclopedic style, but the sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2016 (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.