Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Webb Hodge


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 15:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Frederick Webb Hodge

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject was connected with various anthropologist research in the field. Does not appear to have any real credentials on his own. Not educated particularly. Field research was weak. He was "there." Pretty much it. Doesn't seem to have found anything (on his own). Leaders of the expeditions justifiably took credit for whatever they found. At most, an ordinary person involved with excavating Native American sites. Not really notable. Student7 (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Clearly a distinguished museum professional. The string of honorary degrees awarded when he was in his late 60s confirms that he regarded as notable in his time.  Partipation in expeditions that have their own WP pages points the same way.  Is "Executive Officer" of Smithsonian the equivalent of CEO?  If so, notable again.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obit on professional journal. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC).
 * Snow keep. The New Mexico State Historian link on the article (which I've just replaced with an archived copy since the original seems to have gone dead) together with the obit found by Xxanthippe and the New York Times obit, constitute a clear pass of WP:GNG, which may work better than WP:PROF in this case since he seems not to have held a faculty position and most of WP:PROF is oriented around that. I would !vote keep based only on having an NYT obit even if we didn't have all the other material. Additionally, Google news search finds five or so articles in the Los Angeles Times that are specifically about him, over a 20-year period, including one calling him "One of the world s great scientists", although I can't find the articles themselves online. And the nominator's vague statement about how he or she personally isn't impressed by the research doesn't address notability policy and isn't very persuasive. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Per David Eppstein, Xxanthippe, and Peterkingiron. Nothing to add, they said it all. --Randykitty (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Per others. Michael Barera (talk) 16:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep -- three honorary degrees from important schools is three times the number needed for a Snow Keep no matter what else is in the article. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep please . Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2013 (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.