Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert A. Rees

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. It's clear that there's no consensus for this article to be deleted. In addition, the article has been significantly improved and updated since nomination. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 04:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert A. Rees[edit]

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

Promo piece, this person lacks sufficient notability. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 December 21. —cyberbot I ^Notify_Online 18:28, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This person was an editor of a significant publication, as well as being a prolific poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but... the article is full of nonsense like his entire teaching history and WP:CRYSTAL stuff like his future publications. It reads like a (bloated) LinkedIn profile. That said, it would seem his actual publications make him notable enough for inclusion. It needs cleaning up and cutting back but deletion isn't the solution, I don't think. But I'm happy to discuss that in greater detail. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm probably at "weak keep" - none of his individual publications would seem to be notable in their own right, such that he would be notable for having written them. Being prolific is irrelevant. I'm a prolific cook, but only in my own kitchen. Editing a notable magazine for 6 years does, I think, get him over the line, especially given that it was in an era without internet or significant television coverage of the same subjects - it was a significant medium for a lot of people. I've done some work to cut out a lot of the rubbish - mostly the unsourced stuff and the "fan boy" stuff like his entire teaching history. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is not insufficiently notable for deletion, then surely hardly anything is! What independent secondary coverage of note does this guy have?! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is never a good argument and your attempts to turn the article into a 4-line stub to prove a point won't fool others who come here to comment. You removed the salient point (his having been the editor of a notable magazine) as unreferenced when logic would suggest that such a claim could easily be verified by any issue of said publication during the (non-internet) period in question. Do you honestly doubt the claim or are you just trying to be painful? St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not WP:OTHERSTUFF but a question of where the threshold of notability is here. What secondary coverage is there? What weight should be accorded to his supposedly important editorship of a supposedly important magazine if secondary sources don't exist to guide us? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the claim can be verified, he passes WP:ANYBIO#2. If you don't believe the magazine is notable ("supposedly important") then nominate it for deletion. Once it's gone I'll happily have another discussion about this fellow. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just added additional up-to-date information. I suspect we could find more information on his recent publications if people tried.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:ACADEMIC as (past) editor of a notable academic journal. Granted, the article on the journal is as puffed up and full of irrelevant detail as this one (and even then does not really make notability very convincing), but AfD is not for cleanup. --Randykitty (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weal keep -- As apparently head of a university department, he is probably notable. He is certainly prolific in his publications. The article might do with pruning. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 23 December 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.