Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven W. Smith

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 delete. Ged UK 12:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steven W. Smith[edit]

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

No indication of notability Derek Andrews (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2015 (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/2015 September 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is pretty much a resume. No claim to notability.Kitfoxxe (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A7 - No claim of significance. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / restore redirect: This is an unsourced WP:SPA biography which was dropped over a previous redirect to Steven Wayne Smith so avoiding new page curation. The unsourced BLP aspect could be resolved by an external link to the subject's site but I see no evidence that the subject is notable, whether as WP:ACADEMIC or WP:BIO. AllyD (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no indication of notability.--Staberinde (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No claim of notability, no sources, looks a bit like a CV - Happysailor ^(Talk) 07:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm local from here and can't say I'm familiar with him and although my searches found results at Books and browser, there's nothing to suggest better improvement. SwisterTwister talk 06:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above to dump this from the history and then restore redirect. Nothing to suggest WP:GNG is met. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy. There is a claim of notability in the article: that he holds a named chair at what is claimed to be a particularly large seminary. Superficially this would seem to pass WP:PROF#C5. However, it does not. The press release I found from his employer noting the chair [1] makes it clear that such titles are given even to assistant professors at that institution, and also makes it clear that he was given that chair while he held a purely administrative role (one too low-level to pass #C6). So regardless of the seminary's size or prestige such chairs do not count as the step above full professor that is the intended meaning of the WP:PROF criterion. Nothing else in the article gives any hint of any other kind of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. I desperately wanted to vote "keep", to preserve the integrity of WP:PROF, but David is spot on. St Anselm (talk) 08:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I was going to vote keep as the holder of a named chair and as a Dean, which is normally a higher post than professor, but perhaps I do not adequately understand the American academic system. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Dean is not "higher" than a professor, it is merely a different type of job. A professor's main job functions are to teach students and perform research; a dean's main job function is to manage a subunit of the university. People who are professors can become deans, and people who are deans can go back to being professors, with no change in their academic rank. We have a criterion for being at a high enough level as an academic administrator to warrant keeping an article, it is WP:PROF#C6, and the level it describes is the head of a whole university, typically one or two steps above the deans in the administrative hierarchy. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2015 (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.