Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Weixlmann


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Joe Weixlmann


Non-notable per WP:BIO -Nv8200p talk 05:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not really an "inclusionist" so to speak, but is his position as a high-level administrator at a major university a notable feature? He is not a random untenured junior faculty member.--Dmz5 05:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Saint Louis University is a major university? -Nv8200p talk 18:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know what your definition of major is but being the oldest west of the Mississippi river and the 4th largest Jesuit university in the country makes it very notable and it is very respected.-- Joe  Jklin  (  T   C  )  21:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and bulk up --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Being Provost of a major university is notable. --Oakshade 07:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep needs to be expanded a bit but seems to be a notable bio Joe  Jklin  (  T   C  )  09:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per notability concerns. No evidence that Joe Weixlmann has been the subject of two or more secondary reliable source. (let me know if you find some and I'll revisit my vote) ---J.S (T/C) 21:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment it seems to me that the lack of 2 or more additional references is not necessary if the person in question is notable at face value. That is to say, if through some stretch of the imagination the President of Cornell did not have 2 secondary sources discussing him, he is still the president of Cornell and deserves an entry.  This does not address the question of whether the provost of a university is inherently notable.--Dmz5 04:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep but expand, else we will have this discussion again shortly Alf photoman 13:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that Alf photoman's argument above is extraordinarily weak. I don't mind having discussions several times, if that's how long it takes to get us to a useful consensus. Far better that than mindless inclusionism to avoid conflict. However, with this particular article I think we have a clear Keep per Oakshade's point. WMMartin 17:30, 6 December 2006 (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.