Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William D. Berry (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. 

Result was Keep. &mdash; Caknuck 05:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

William D. Berry (political scientist)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable professor, does not satisfy WP:PROF. Dsreyn 17:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete possibly just scrapes through WP:PROF criteria 3 as the author of Understanding Multivariate Analysis, but it isn't that widely used a textbook —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  17:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.  -- Pete.Hurd 19:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep another distinguished professor at FSU. Enough said. DGG 03:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Merits are at least as strong as the physical scientists mentioned from FSU. --Buridan 13:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Another professor for whom independent, reliable sources exist. DickClarkMises 13:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While I do think there's something weird going on here - five simultaneous AfD nominations on members of the faculty of a single institution - aside from the book I can't see grounds for deletion; the three above all say sources exist, but I have looked and can't really see anything. While I would love a reason to keep this, if only because there's a slight whiff of bad faith about what's going on here, I can't make a good case here (unless someone can find some legitimate sources instead of saying "they must exist") - he doesn't appear to have any significant publications, awards or have held any particularly significant position —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  19:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, here are some independent, reliable sources (mostly citations of his work, of which there are tons more) I found in a google search ("William D. Berry" "political science"):, , , , . Google Scholar lists 548 items for "William D. Berry," including a 1990 article with 232 citations in the literature, a 1985 book that has been cited 233 times, and a 1998 article that has been cited 137 times. Anyone could have found these sources in five minutes. DickClarkMises 19:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep in light of sources found by DickClarkMises — I think that completes the 'keep' set for these five noms —  irides centi   (talk to me!)  19:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. By far not even the least notable William Berry on WP. (That would be William Berry (political consultant), I think.) By coincidence I just added another article on a different William Berry a few days ago (William Berry (artist)), but this one again seems highly notable, especially in view of the additional references found by DIckClarkMises. I see no justification for this attempted purge of many of the best faculty from a single institution. —David Eppstein 21:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the commentary above, meets relevant policies and guidelines. Burntsauce 23:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Part of a series of badly-thought-out AFD nominations on FSU researchers by Dsreyn.   --C S (Talk) 05:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above, possible WP:POINT nomination or a facsimile thereof. RFerreira 05:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Seems like the point was to nominate poorly written articles with no assertion of the subject's notability.  I don't see how WP:POINT applies.  Have you actually read any of the notability guidelines? fbb_fan 01:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - he clearly meets one, and arguably meets three, or the PROF criteria. Again, someone is way overstepping in their effort to purge distinguished FSU faculty.  Wikipedia should not tolerate such selective attacks on a single institution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.180.216.26 (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2007 (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.