Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Randall (political scientist)


 * 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The result was   nomination withdrawn due to sourcing improvements. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Randall (political scientist)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This one's a bit of an edge case. As an academic for a major Canadian university, the possibility certainly does exist that he may be sufficiently notable to meet WP:ACADEMIC — but as written, the article doesn't actually demonstrate the notability of his work as a political scientist, such as naming actual works that he may have published or properly sourcing any of the unsubstantiated assertions made to the talk page that his work has had an influence on Canadian or international politics. As it stands, the only assertion of notability here that's actually supported by a valid source is his status as an unelected candidate in the current Canadian election — so while he might meet WP:ACADEMIC, the only thing that's properly verifiable right now is that he fails WP:POLITICIAN. I'm fully prepared to withdraw this nomination if the article sees sourcing improvements before close — but in its current form, the article doesn't really demonstrate his notability and isn't keepable without a bit of tender lovin' care. Procedural nomination, no !vote. Bearcat (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Keep: Randall's an elected member of the Royal Society of Canada. I think it should be sufficient for WP:prof notability.(Msrasnw (talk) 13:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC))
 * It might be notable if it were sourced to a reliable media source independent of him (i.e. his own faculty page on the university's website doesn't count.) Notability on Wikipedia isn't just about being able to tick off boxes on a checklist; the claims need to be sourced to real sources. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I had presumed a webpage on the University of Calgary would be deemed reliable as seems normal for academics. If the University of Calagary is not OK perhaps the ref to the Royal Society of Canada's page might be made. But I guess we would have the same problem there - as he is a fellow of the RSC it is not independent of him. I have added this in anycase. Best wishes anyway. (Msrasnw (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC))
 * Comment. Factual information on university web pages is usually considered to be reliable provided that the page is hosted by the university. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC).
 * Not exactly. It's valid as a supplementary source for informational purposes after notability has been demonstrated by other sources. But it's not valid as primary proof of notability by itself, because it's not independent of the topic (which is a core requirement of our reliable sourcing rules.) Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep on basis of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC).
 * I see that the sourcing's been improved significantly. As promised, I now withdraw the nomination. Good job, guys. Bearcat (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2011 (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.