Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spanos

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 20:15, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spanos
Besides being an inappropriate title and a non-notable subject, the author doesn't even know where this guy teaches? RickK 07:17, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable - zero Google hits for "William V Spanos" and "William Spanos", possible vanity. Megan1967 08:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say redirect to Alex Spanos (billionaire owner of the San Diego Chargers), but it appears we don't have an article on him. Any other famous Spanoses? Meelar (talk) 08:41, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Tentative keep. About 350 Google hits for "William V. Spanos", looks like a senior scholar: 50 years in academia, published author of six books, edited other five, over hundred published papers etc. I moved the article under correct title and polished it a little bit. I'm still researching this, so I might change this vote later. jni 10:28, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability. JoaoRicardo 10:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability has been established. JoaoRicardo 06:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep (William V. Spanos, since Spanos is now a redirect). Not sure if he passes the professor test, but when in doubt, we should keep an article. Thanks, jni. --Deathphoenix 14:38, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * When in doubt, we should delete an article. It's up to the article to establish its notability, not for us to have to dig around for information to make sure the article is worth keeping.  RickK 23:43, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I'm pretty sure the deletion policy is when in doubt, keep. But then, mine's only one vote. It's up to the others to also place their votes. Mine stands for this one. --Deathphoenix 06:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I believe the "when in doubt, keep" rule applies to administrators closing VfD votes. I don't remember seeing such policy as regarding voters. JoaoRicardo 06:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur with Rick - I would say that if notability cannot established, the subject is not notable. Therefore, delete. Radiant! 12:33, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (under William V. Spanos). I've read some of Spanos's publications, and remembered his name afterward. I consider his work, as a body, prolific and high-quality enough to justify inclusion.  Passes the professor test in my opinion.  The current article is, obviously, still a stub. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Reasons William V. Spanos is more notable than just any old professor: 1. Major interpreter of Heidegger in the field of literary criticism (possibly the most important one currently writing). 2. Founder of boundary 2, an important journal in literary studies. 3. Extensive publication record including at least four books.  -- Rbellin|Talk 22:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * boundary 2 founder? Definite keep. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:09, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep William V. Spanos article Professor at the Binghamton University at New York, published author founded boundary 2 postmodern journal in 1972. Capitalistroadster 09:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I've been asked to comment about this, and while I would say that I'm not familiar with any of his work from my own dealings with the Heidegger, Arendt etc. discourse (it is certainly too generous to call him the most important Heidegger scholar in the field of literary criticism), he's certainly more important than your average college professor (just 12 hits on Google Scholar, but I get many more on the German Google itself, some 1000+, and including some very good ones), and the presses and substance matter of his pieces are solid enough. Of course, the article is a stub and is missing especially the key material contributions and merits of Spanos, but this is not a "vanity piece" (and if it were, I wouldn't care either; I think vanity is fine for those who have at least a bit of a reason to be vain, and the label of "vanity piece" in Wikipedia certainly does not bear as much as looking at it, let alone thinking about it - according to that, if Albee or Habermas or Rumsfeld would write their own basic entries, they'd have to be deleted). Clossius 07:05, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.