Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Bessler


 * 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) Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 10:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

John Bessler

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mostly unreferenced, only notable thing is that he's married to US Senator. Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 22:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete No standalone notability, would fail WP:ACADEMIC, no particularly large coverage on Google. One of his books is fairly popular according to WorldCat but that's about it. § FreeRangeFrog croak 23:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 02:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I found a few reviews of his books (note that he's commonly called John D Bessler). American Criminal Law Review, Kirkus, Publishers' Weekly, Law & Society Review, Michigan Historical Review, Journal of American History, Baltimore Sun --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 15:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Colapeninsula's links are sufficient evidence of passing WP:AUTHOR. Ray  Talk 17:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue of the book being notable while the author is not is a common one - my !vote is based solely on the notability of the latter. If anything this AFD makes a case for moving the article to the book's title instead. § FreeRangeFrog  croak 18:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:ACADEMIC and WP:NOTINHERITED. I don't see WP:AUTHOR applying here as he is a professor by occupation, and just happened to write a book or two. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry? Our notability guidelines apply based on whether you meet criteria; your primary occupation has nothing to do with it.  There are, for example, quite a lot of politicians whose primary occupation is "farmer", but who still meet WP:POLITICIAN. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At any rate, WP:ACADEMIC explicitly says that meeting another area (such as WP:AUTHOR) is sufficient to meet WP:ACADEMIC as well. See the ninth criterion. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Practically all professors write a book or two on their subject, and Mr. Bessler did just that. That doesn't make him a notable author by any standard, that just makes him a professor who authored a book or two. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:AUTHOR criterion 4. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Recognition of his work in GS contributes to WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:23, 20 January 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.