Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carleton Lewis Brownson


 * 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. Closing a little early. No consensus to delete and the nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet of someone who targets articles created by RAN. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Carleton Lewis Brownson

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

author invited me to place this page on A.F.D. Contested Propsed deletion. Melanesian obsession (talk) 21:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being dean of liberal arts, and later dean of the faculty, at City College of New York tends to indicate notability under WP:PROF. Brownson's translations of Xenophon's Hellenica and Anabasis were published by the Loeb Classical Library and remain in print from Harvard University Press more than 60 years after his death. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable. Freakshownerd (talk) 22:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete does not appear from the text of the article to meet the standards of wp:prof nor is his work being claimed to be indepedantly notable as the subject of reliable sources. Ngaskill (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep; of course, as the creator, the obit in the New York Times is a generally accepted marker for notability. And it also meets the WP:Prof standard as: "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society." Dean of the college is that academic post. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The case via WP:PROF is a bit unclear, partly because WP:PROF is aimed more at recent academia than that of 100 years ago. But the three NYT pieces are enough to convince me of a pass of WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and ban nominator for deletion to hell.--Milowent (talk) 04:18, 16 July 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.