Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leo Sandon


 * 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. Steve (Stephen)talk 06:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Leo Sandon

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Notability not asserted. The article is one of a long series posted by Special:Contributions/Florio_Stacy_Unitas about FSU people, many of which have been speedied. This one is a professor emeritus, and both speedy and prod were apparently contested on that basis alone. Clicketyclack 16:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO and WP:PROF. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment we seem to have some problems with FSU. I did not really plan to spend this evening rewriting a large number of inadequately documented articles about the faculty of this university. If someone takes the responsibility of entering a large number of articles on the various people mentioned in a university handbook (they do not seem to be copyvios), it is reasonable to expect that ed. to do a careful job of it, and be aware of the sort of sourcing necessary to demonstrate notability. But if the subjects of the articles are notable, I at any rate feel a responsibility to try to document them to the necessary level, though I can not take the time to do as full a rewrite for each of them as would otherwise be desirable. I have left a note at Florio's talk page explaining the problem. 04:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * Weak Keep I have rewritten this article, although hastily. Prof Sandon is clearly not notable as a researcher. His distinguished chair is a teaching chair, not as usual a research chair, and I have been unable to locate any truly scholarly work. However, he has cowritten what is clearly a notable textbook, and he appears to be a notable commentator. I'll try to provide more documentation. If considered under the ordinary N standards, he probably does qualify. DGG 04:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.  -- Pete.Hurd 17:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. I suppose the ABC "expert" endorsement may count for something, but on the other hand, a news outlet is naturally going to claim that anyone they use to provide background is an expert. fbb_fan 15:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. He's probably in the bottom 25% of all professors on Wikipedia and is not a notable reseacher in any documented manner.  I don't see many citations to his work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.180.216.26 (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC).


 * Weak Delete: DGG's contributions make it a hard choice. Sandon's chair is notable and the textbook is, but I'm not sure that both of them together make the page notable.  If it were sparklingly written then I would consider it a Keep as an article that enhances Wikipedia, but as it is, it is more likely to become a less up-to-date version of a personal webpage.  (btw -- I don't think the bottom 25% of profs on Wikipedia is a reason to delete; if we're contributing as we'd like then all the profs, even the bottom 25%, would be notable) --Myke Cuthbert 16:00, 9 May 2007 (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.