Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Scholz


 * 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.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

John Scholz

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable college professor, does not satisfy WP:PROF. Dsreyn 13:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Seems notable enough due to his publications with other notable individuals. Sources need to be rounded up, but that doesn't mean the article should be dumped. Scholz has numerous articles in peer-reviewed journals, citations by others, and seems to be easy enough to find more on. DickClarkMises 16:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. None of your claims are backed up anywhere in the article.  It's up to the editors of the article to demonstrate notability and provide sources. Dsreyn 17:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, and they should have done that. It isn't clear to me, though, that just because an article is low-quality its deletion is warranted. My understanding of the AfD process is that articles which ought not exist should be deleted, not those articles which ought to exist but are currently in a stub stage with a need for more sources. An article of low-quality is not necessarily an article that ought be deleted. I wholeheartedly agree that the article should be improved. The AfD question is whether it can be improved within the boundaries specified by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It can, and therefore it belongs here. DickClarkMises 18:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

*This AfD has been bundled with the AfD for R. Mark Isaac - see Articles for deletion/R. Mark Isaac. Dsreyn 13:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.  -- Pete.Hurd 15:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Full professor, holder of a named chair at an important university.Such people are almost always notable, as they get there having passed many reviews from the peers for notability. all we need do it record it. The publications cn of course be listed, but the N is apparent in the present state. The article need only be sourceable.DGG 02:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Holding a named chair is not automatically notable by WP:PROF, and there is no other assertion of notability in the article. fbb_fan 16:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep -- true a chair in and of itself does not suffice, but a) heavily cited pubs are referenced, and b) his contributions are clearly explained and support by the article and his resume, which is linked. Again, this is selective purging of a distinguished FSU faculty member, and it denies FSU faculty the right to have stubs, as faculty as most other institutions do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.180.216.26 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - Why would you delete this kind of entry? It describes the significance of his work, describes his work generally, contains references, and I also note that he regularly publishes in the top political science journal.  If you don't know the field, I suspect you might consider a game theorist writing on enforcement not noteworthy, but anyone writing in legal enforcement or political science of enforcement, including federalism, knows the significance of Scholoz's contributions.
 * 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.