Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Marsh


 * 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The result was Keep (non-admin closure) nomination withdrawn Whpq (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter Marsh

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fails notability guideline WP:PROF, completely unreferenced. TreveXtalk 19:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent updates, good keep TreveXtalk 01:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. I have added references that show he is one of the significant contributors to what is essentially the bible of Social Work undergraduates. Thus, he passes WP:PROF. He is also extremely notable within his field; I'm looking for a source for this right now.  This would also pass him on WP:PROF.  Also, Google Scholars gives a substantial amount of material that he has authored himself or contributed to, which is another criteria for WP:PROF.  I'm sure that the nominator is acting in good faith, but I think it's about time people start improving articles rather than deleting them.  Cel  Talk to me  20:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Which of the several criteria at PROF specifically quilfy him? --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 1, 2, and 3. Cel  Talk to me  01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article has been improved, and now shows sufficient notability. --Eastmain (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really see a demonstration of notability. Can you be more specific.  I generally support inclusion but I need a hint or two here. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kevin: I'd like to see some stronger evidence of notability. Dean of a school is a good sign, but not enough to be automatically notable, I think. And WP:PROF #3 talks about the author or editor of a widely used text, but he seems to be neither, merely one of a large number of contributors to a text edited by someone else. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's very seldom that one individual writes an entire textbook in this field, especially when the textbook is aimed being an extremely authoritative text. Merely being selected as one of the contributors should be enough to make him notable.  Cel  Talk to me  01:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I spent a little time on Google and see stong evidence that he is well noticed in academic cirlces and is published all over the web. While I'd prefer to see something about him more than by him, there is an inference from the widespread involvement in projects and as a lecturer at multiple universities.  I think that the article is weak, but that is no reason for deletion.  --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.   —David Eppstein (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * keep per Cel. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2008 (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.