Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William E. Bennett


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 15:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

William E. Bennett

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Subject is non-notable per WP:PROF Mwelch 09:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Notability seems to be that he was elected to a slngle term on a local school board and then was a long-time respected professor. Admittedly was notable within the small town in which he university is located that his death was mentioned in the local paper and notable enough within his university that his death was mentioned in that university's alumni newsletter.  Nonetheless, I'm not sure such local notability truly satisfies WP:N.  Article says he "published articles" but gives no indication of what articles/are they well know/etc.  Note that the last two items listed as "References" are not actually references to Bennett at all.  One is a reference to a different person, who is quoted in the article.  The other is a reference to Bennett's church.  Neither of these "references" mentions Bennett himself in any way.  Mwelch 09:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.  -- Pete.Hurd 13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete notability not established, fails WP:PROF by a wide margin, per nom. Pete.Hurd 13:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Reads like an obituary.  Of no widespread interest.  Irene Ringworm 16:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It reads like an obituary because it was largely copied from the obituary. I found one academic article from the mid-70s, in Southern Review, and that's about it. I agree that WP:PROF is not met. Brianyoumans 18:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as copyvio (WP:CSD general critera #12). Too similar to the obit. —David Eppstein 04:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * delete I think as a general reule any article ending with details of the funeral and the survivors can be presumed to be a copyvio from the obit, or at least composed carelessly enough for the sources to be looked at very acutely.DGG 04:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article doesn't need deleted, it just needs work. The bulk of the man's published work was likely pre-Internet, so let's not jump to conclusions and assume he was nobody just because Google doesn't immediately turn up a ton of relevant citations. The article does read like an obit and needs to be rewritten. Also, the quote about being missed by his "smoking buddies" was vandalism and has been removed. --66.38.55.37 01:19, 3 April 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.