Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George M. Zinkhan


 * 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   '''Non-admin close. Speedy keep per WP:Speedy keep, nom withdrawn, no other "Delete" !votes.'''. ukexpat (talk) 17:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

George M. Zinkhan

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is about a person currently in the news as the wanted suspect in a triple murder yesterday. As I think this is the only reason an article exists about him (despite his academic achievements) it is squarely in the realm of WP:BLP1E. More appropriate would be an article on the event itself, but the stub that existed has been redirected to this article. Note that a previous version at George Zinkhan was speedily deleted under the G10 criterion yesterday. Lady of  Shalott  01:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions.  -- ukexpat (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- ukexpat (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  01:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  — Lady  of  Shalott  01:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Haven't had time to look at this yet, I just wanted to let everyone know this article was recently discussed at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * weak keep -- a search on google scholar (here) makes it clear his work is widely cited. The murder thingie is obviously the reason the article has been created now, but there would have been sufficient notability previously for an article on him, so there is sufficient notability now.  Of course it should be re-written so that the lead is not a breathless update of the search/investigation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Of course it should be re-written so that the lead is not a breathless update of the search/investigation." Done. I have no opinion on whether the article should be kept, though. cab (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable quite apart from his recent activities: editor in chief of several well known periodicals; named  full professor at two universities, multiple books.  Article needs to be carefully watched, of course.  The G10 was in my opinion an error, but I have notified the admin who deleted, as should have been done by the nom.    DGG (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for notifying the deleting admin. It did not occur to me to do so. Lady  of  Shalott  03:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I was the admin who deleted under G10 yesterday. The version of the article which I speedily deleted contained no references at all and did not assert the level of notability required for either WP:PROF or WP:N/CA, as I noted on WP:BLPN at the time that I deleted. I agree that there is the possibility that an article is possible for this person, and the one that is the subject of this AFD is much closer. In my own opinion, there is undue weight being given to the crime he is alleged to have committed, while the real reasons he is notable, as mentioned above by DGG, are given somewhat short shrift. Even should the subject be convicted of the reported crime, his prior activity is really what makes him notable; sad to say, this type of crime is remarkably commonplace and shouldn't be considered noteworthy in itself. Risker (talk) 03:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Addition: I would have no objection to the current article being moved over the redirect so that it meets our standard naming conventions, but will refrain from doing so myself as I don't want to mess up the AfD.  Risker (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per . Too soon to tell if this person will continue to be notable in the future, but for now I believe this person will continue to a be a notable person. Could use some additions on his academic background though Calebrw (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. When I stumbled on this article yesterday, it contained almost exclusively information about the alleged crime. I spend some time digging up stuff about his career (not too difficult, given his detailed CV on the university website). I was surprised myself to see how easily Zinkhan passes the bar for several of the notability criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. I also redirected several other articles to this one (even though I almost got into an edit war with someone who thought all three victims "deserved" their own articles; thanks for your help there Ukexpat :-). I agree with DGG that the article needs to be monitored and the current version, giving less emphasis to the alleged crime (even if at some point the crime would be proven and there would be a conviction). Risker is right that it is the other stuff that makes Zinkhan notable, not the alleged crime which is all too common. One question to Risker (just for my education), how does the current article not meet our naming conventions? --Crusio (talk) 09:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Crusio, our naming convention would have it at "George Zinkhan" instead of "George M. Zinkhan". I believe the second (current) article was created shortly after I had deleted the first one, and the original name redirected to this article later than that. Risker (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks! --Crusio (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per discussions above.--Judo112 (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is definitely notable as an academic.  The recent crime for which he is accused is just additional content.  Yaf (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:PROF. ukexpat (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In light of all the well-reasoned comments above, I withdraw my nomination. Lady  of  Shalott  15:06, 27 April 2009 (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.