Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis R. Gottschalk


 * 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. With all votes save the nominator being for Keep, this is clearly Snowing. Non-admin closure. Edward321 (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Louis R. Gottschalk

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Does not appear to meet Notability_(academics) guideline. Not sure though, and sorry for the noobishness. Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 10:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm puzzled by this nomination. I understand that you are not sure though. While the article could certainly be expanded, the subject of this article is highly notable, meeting several (at least six of nine) criteria within the Notability_(academics) guideline. He received three degrees from Cornell University, including a doctorate of history. The U of L recognizes him as a distinguished historian and hosts an entire collection of Louis R. Gottschalk Lectures, while the University of Chicago holds his research papers and literature. He authored seven books, and served as president of the American Historical Association in 1953. He was recognized as a Distinguished Professor at the University of Chicago. He is also a Fullbright scholar and recipient of the Guggenheim Fellowship. All of this information is available within the article and sources provided. Cindamuse (talk) 13:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - As per above. Couldn't say it better myself. — GorillaWarfare talk-review me! 14:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Major awards and academic journal article with the historian as the subject already showing. Terrible article, hopefully the Rescue Squad can add some content. Still a notable figure. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:PROF and WP:SNOWBALL. It is one thing for people to talk about you, give you awards, etc.  It is another when they start naming things after you.  RJC  TalkContribs 19:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, don't be ridiculous. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - he was a distinguished professor at major research universities, two-time Guggenheim Fellow, Chevalier in the Legion of Honor, and Fulbright scholar. He easily meets WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep for clear reasons above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC).
 * Speedy keep. The case was obvious enough already, but I just found a New York Times obituary that I think seals the deal. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, clearly meets WP:PROF. Speedy close, too. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: clear keep. (Msrasnw (talk) 01:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC))
 * Keep Cindamuse makes the case rather well.  D r e a m Focus  17:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Given the number of keeps and speedy keeps, together with the absence of any delete vote beyond the nom (who was unsure), I expected this to be closed early.  But everyone keeps voting, meaning that they are involved in the discussion and so disqualified from being the one to close it early!  Where is Captain Non-Admin-Close-Man when you need him?  RJC  TalkContribs 17:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep -- He clearly has a substantial body of work. The awards also imply notability.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable. Arthur Frobisher (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep. First Light (talk) 03:47, 7 August 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.