Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth A Fuchsman


 * 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   delete. &mdash; Scientizzle 06:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Kenneth A Fuchsman

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This looks like the curriculum vitae of an academic, rather than an encyclopedia article. It cites no outside sources, indiscriminately lists all his publications, and shows no evidence of the kind of academic impact needed to pass WP:PROF. Google scholar search found no citations to his works; there are a few in Google books, but not enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF #1. The article was prodded via WP:BLPPROD but DGG deprodded it on the basis that it is verifiable that he has published what it says he has published. I don't think that's a good enough reason to keep the article. David Eppstein (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  —David Eppstein (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a claim of notability in the article? Perhaps it could be A7 deleted. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article claims that he's written a lot of books. Not sure that make him notable if the books themselves are not notable. ALI nom nom 20:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Co-edited a book is not the same as written. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. Co-written a lot of books, then. ALI nom nom 21:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * He's written only articles, and a letter to a newspaper. The lone book is co-edited. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per my above comments, not notable. ALI nom nom 21:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless there is something the article doesn't say, this is an article on an Assistant Extension Professor. Abductive  (reasoning) 22:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete My deprodding should not be taken to mean we should keep the article, just that at least one of the key pieces of information in it met WP:V, and that BLP prod did not apply. (as an aside, I find that BLP prod is often misused when there are references to be found, but the article is an obvious candidate for deletion otherwise via speedy or Prod. When there's a speedy reason, I substitute that, often long before it reaches the 10 days.) I do not think there is a reason for speedy here, because the assertion that one has written multiple articles and a book is at least some claim to possible notability. Not a proof of meeting WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF, but enough for the very low bar in WP:SPEEDY A7. Now, looking in the usual way at his publication, there is only one book, Farnen & Fuchsman,(eds.), The Enduring Influence: Religion in american Life there is an immediate problem here: I cannot find it in worldCat or even google, though Farnen has many other books there in the general subject of American intellectual history, and is almost certainly notable.  The other works are articles, and it appears almost all of them   are in a variety of very insignificant journals. Even if the book could be identified, this is not a nontable career. DGG ( talk ) 00:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it save effort just to pretend that it's a normal WP:PROD and let it expire rather than forcing it to go to an AfD in such cases, though? What problem does it cause for the ostensible reason the article was prodded (lack of sources) to be different from the reason for leaving the prod in place (lack of notability)? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per DGG. Speedy deletions and ProDs should not be used for academics, creative persons, and similar BLPs where the criteria are subjective.  In this particular case, Fuchsman is an Assistant professor, not normally considered to be notable, although he has a hefty c.v. of scholarly work.  He will probably become notable, but who knows? Bearian (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2010 (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.