Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Szabo


 * 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Stephen Szabo

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is an undercited BLP stub that's been tagged as autobiography. He has an extremely low google footprint (mixed in with many other Stephen Szabos). He's not at the TAA anymore (it has not existed for half a decade). I had intended to update this section but it doesn't look like there's much to replace it with.

His work has had scholarly impact, been reviewed, used in courses, and so forth, but my understanding of WP:PROF's "significant impact" criteria is that more than this is required. asilvering (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. asilvering (talk) 05:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. I'm seeing several reviews of several works, including . Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added those citations to the article. I'm not convinced this is enough, though. If academics can count as notable via WP:NAUTHOR in this way, everyone with a monograph (that is, every tenure-track professor) would be wikipedia-notable. We have almost no biographical information on him. I'm reasonably confident he's still alive, because I found a rating on RateMyProf from 2021. If this is enough, I'd venture that nearly every article ever deleted about a professor was removed in error. -- asilvering (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To pass WP:NAUTHOR, you need several reviews; to avoid WP:BLP1E, they should be of at least two works. That's not so trivial.  The conventional wisdom as I understand it is that full professors at major universities are often notable (at least by the end of their career), associate professors are occasionally notable, and assistant professors are very rarely notable. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: per WP:AUTHOR as demonstrated by multiple reviews of his works. TJMSmith (talk) 03:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Four major books by reputable presses, all with significant professional reviews. Enough to meet WP:PROF. And certainly enough to meet the incredibly weak standard at WP:AUTHOR. (hint: Every academic in the humanities or social sciences who has published 2 or more books that have gotten RS reviews will meet WP:AUTHOR. That basically means everyone associate professor or higher at a top level research univerisyt, and quite a few assitant professors and a good number of postdocs and unaffiliated scholars. I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but that's the side effect of one of the other SNGs.).    DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm glad at least for confirmation that my "but then every tenure-track professor is notable" is correct, though now I'm confused about how any have managed to get deleted or challenged in the first place. I'll pull the AfD. -- asilvering (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2021 (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.