Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernst Oswald Johannes Westphal

Ernst Oswald Johannes Westphal was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was to keep. Cool Hand Luke  06:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Keep almost no results for this person on google. name is not familiar. 1 line bio... nuff said Enough content to keep now. Alkivar 03:27, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Unresolved/lost VfD. Delete unless article is improved and shows some slight note. Hard to dig through mirrors online. Cool Hand Luke  03:11, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Keep. Seems to be a consensus here, hide discussion behind link? Cool Hand Luke  22:00, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Speedy deleted as being a substub from which nothing could grow. It merely gave birth/death dates and said "professor of African languages."  Where?  What did he do?  Why important?  Without a general web search giving a result, there isn't a way for the stub to be filled in, unless there is an expert.  An expert will not be spurred by such a substub, since the article was also an orphan. Geogre 13:23, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Apologies and change of vote to keep the rewrite. I am happy to be proven wrong but stand by my initial argument that a figure with just dates and "a professor" is not sufficient for growth, if web sources don't offer the unsubscribed any material.  I'm glad that Uppland had access to proprietary sources of information. Geogre 18:15, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure if there was any policy on this, but it could perhaps be pointed out that JSTOR (the repository of electronic journals to which the link points) is widely available through library and university networks. // u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 10:02, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm no expert but I wrote a stub on Westphal. He wasn't that difficult to find on the web really, but I had to resort to an obituary in a subscription-only electronic journal to get something more than bibliographical references. / u◦p◦p◦l◦a◦n◦d 16:46, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Looks like it belongs here now. --jpgordon{gab} 17:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Clear keep and clear evidence why that should not be grounds for speedy deletion. Free materials on the internet do not constitute the full universe of valid sources. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:09, Nov 2, 2004 (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.