Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John E. Warriner


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

John E. Warriner

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Subject seems to fail NAUTHOR, ANYBIO, and GNG. While well-regarded by some in his field, only the obit actually focuses on the subject. While Warriner's textbook might be notable, Warriner as an author is probably not. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 15:51, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors,  and Michigan.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:GNG states: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Since that is clearly the case here, the burden of overcoming the presumption of notability lies with the editor disputing it. In other words, the onus is on the nominator to explain why, in his view, the subject is not notable. Finally, quoting from WP:NAUTHOR: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." The article makes such a claim.  Curiously the nominator appears even to stipulate that the first prong of WP:NAUTHOR is met ("The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers") with the statement "While well-regarded by some in his field" Tito Omburo (talk) 15:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. A New York Times obituary (not paid death notice) is by itself a strong indicator of GNG notability, and this appears to be one of those rare cases where an academic is notable through WP:PROF as well (judging by the Times pull quote "one of the best selling series in textbook publishing history". We would need published reviews for a third notability criterion, WP:AUTHOR, but that seems plausible as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Gosh, it's been a while since we've had a WP:PROF case, but it looks like this qualifies. And the reviews plus the Times obit add up to a WP:AUTHOR pass, I'd say. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. There seems a clear pass of GNG & AUTHOR based on material now present in the article. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article as it was prior to nomination already demonstrated notability. The additional refs just reinforce this.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 01:30, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets GNG and NAUTHOR. -- Mvqr (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:Author. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2023 (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.