Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allan Harman


 * 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   speedy keep. The nominator clearly states that the article shouldn't be deleted, and notabiility has been established. (non-admin closure)  D u s t i SPEAK!! 23:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Allan Harman

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This was tagged for speedy deletion. I'm slightly personally conflicted here, because I'm what you might call a Sydney Anglican, which would encompass this subject (yes, yes, the subject is a Presbyterian, I know, I know...). However, I note that he is notable in his sphere, so I don't feel that we should delete. However, I'm taking this to the broader community to make a decision. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Wow, that was a mighty quick AfD. I'm still in the middle of writing the article. But I thought I'd put enough for notability - WP:PROF indicates that a festschrift usually satisfies the criteria for notability of academics. StAnselm (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey... I know. I did a PTC course, so I was a bit surprised that that he was tagged for speedy deletion, but then I figured it might be because of the circles I'm known in. I have had to take to AFD due to my own personal views as I can't just remove the speedy tag. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment anyone have any sources Google news comes up somewhat lacking, and a general search for "Allan Harman" Presbyterian returns about 200 hits most of them not about this Alan Harman. Google books returns a number of hits but there seem to be multiple Allan Harmans that wrote books on theology, so I have no way of knowing which if any were written by this Allan Harman. Ridernyc (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Try Literature and the church's mission today, from the National Library of Australia and also Approaching the Old Testament. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When I did that general search, I got over 1000 hits, of which the first 30 were all this guy (after that, I got bored stopped checking). -- 202.124.74.53 (talk) 11:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: A7 clearly does not apply. The article makes two "credible claims of significance or importance" -- the existence of a festschrift and the quote in the second sentence. -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep for reasons above. Was it necessary to bring this to AfD? Could not the speedy delete tag, which was completely inappropriate, just have been removed with an explanation? Xxanthippe (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC).
 * I don't think it was entirely inappropriate. There was no harm taking this to AFD. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is harm because it wastes the time of editors here with a clear-cut case when they are much overburdened. Leave it to the deletionists to make fools of themselves. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC).
 * I have to disagree. Nobodies time has been wasted, if anything I've been able to find references I would not have found. So no waste of time going on here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have to disagree with you Tbsdy, Unlike Jimmy Wales, I never accept the "ends justify the means arguments" that contentious behavior is acceptable as long as the end result is good. This kind of argument ignore more civil and less contentious paths. There are better ways to source an article that putting it up for deletion. Deletion, often a very contentious forum, should be a last resort. Okip (the new and improved Ikip) 11:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Grahame (talk) 06:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ACADEMIC. WWGB (talk) 10:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.