Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William "Bill" McKinney

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William "Bill" McKinney[edit]

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

Non-notable academic. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, and when I PRODded the article, it was contested with a note on my talk page that "as president and full professor at PSR, I think he easily passes WP:PROF".

The relevant point in WP:PROF is presumably "#6. The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society." PSR (the Pacific School of Religion) is not a hugely notable institution, so I don't think that McKinney meets that test.

It's all worth noting that the very loose guidelines currently in place at WP:PROF were the mechanism by which the recent breaching experiment was possible. Given that there is little to say about McKinney, we should at the very least be taking a narrow interpretation of WP:PROF, rather than trying to loosen it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 19:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a number of sources. The Pacific School of Religion is the largest and most prestigious of the schools in the Berkeley Union, along with being the most progressive. Being the President of it is a big thing. Silverseren^C 19:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether the school is progressive, revolutionary, conservative, or reactionary, what has that got to do with either the notability of the institution or a decision to keep this article? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only possibility is to pass WP:Prof #6 but institution is small, only 1500 staff and students. Maybe merge to Pacific School of Religion. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6 says "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society." It does not say that it has to be a major institution. And, besides that, there are enough other news articles that mention him (I can put in more if you want), that I believe he merits his own article. Silver seren^C 00:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be a cut-off on size somewhere but I don't know where it is. Also zero GS hits, not much on gnews. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

87 hits (specific) isn't good enough? Silver seren^C 01:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not for WP:Prof. See the past record of these academic pages. We usually expect many hundreds of scholarly cites and these are just ordinary media hits. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

(edit conflict)As for GS hits, I am not sure why you get zero; when I search <"William McKinney" religion> I get 849 hits, of which the majority do appear to relate to this person, on the first pages of the results at least. --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That changes things enough, with WP:Prof #6, for a keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Significant school (old, well-documented history, thousands of gNews archives hits), he's the president, so he clearly passes WP:PROF. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a general principle that notability is not inherited. Is there really consensus to keep academics as an exception to that rule? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? He's not inheriting the notability from anybody. If you mean, inheriting it from the school, um...yeah, that's where notability for professors comes from. That's why it's one of the criteria for notability, per WP:PROF. Silver seren^C 22:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability cones from their work, and the attention paid to it, regardless of whether they are writing from a garden shed or the ivy league. This criterion allows a completely obscure prof to get a bypass to the basic notability requirements, by assuming that their role in an academic notable means they inherit the notability of the college. But hey, it was good enough for Mike Handel. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I get 765 GS cites for the book American mainline religion: Its changing shape and future -- Radagast3 (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.

1. ‘President of it is a big thing’ does not make sense. Kind of similar pages (e.g. founding principal of a college and a secretary) were rejected in the past. 2. ‘prestigious of the schools’ is a relative term. - It is becoming difficult to find notability for him with reference to WP:PROF. 3. From the school page - ‘It still has one devoted to gay studies, and is the only seminary in the United States to offer a degree in gay studies.’ Does this make him notable? thx. --ouieak (talk) 22:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep being a president #6 in WP:PROF. Also 765 GS cites for the book American mainline religion (as cited above). --ouieak (talk) 23:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Change the title. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To what and why? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Likely to "William McKinney", as the nickname "Bill" should be in the lead, not the title. Silver seren^C 01:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To William McKinney (professor) or William McKinney (academic). There's already a William McKinney. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This can probably be saved for discussion on the talk page after this AfD has closed. Silver seren^C 19:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per above. Culturalrevival (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2010 (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.