Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David M. Crowe

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 keep. (non-admin closure) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

David M. Crowe

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable (WP:PROF) Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 14:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Although the original nominator's argument must be tossed out due to WP:JNN, he is correct in stating that the article is not notable. The article is written like a list of all books that he has worked on and grossly violates Wikipedia policy.155blue (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current article provides little, but Google searches suggest that, as the article states, Crowe is recognized for his work on Oskar Schindler[1] and other Holocaust-related issues. Here he is in The New York Times [2] and The Guardian[3], and here he is quoted in a recent news story [4]. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. Quite plainly the supporters of deletion have made no significant effort to assess the actual notability of the article subject (see, eg, http://www.elon.edu/e-web/law/faculty/crowe_david.xhtml) but instead are whaling away at a new article nominated here only minutes after its creation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Passes WP:Prof. Irresponsible nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep. His book holdings, as quantified by WorldCat, are hefty: 1695, 1009, 744, 535, ..., which far exceeds the WP:PROF c1 guideline. Article may not be very well written at the moment, but notability of subject is conclusive. Please WP:BEFORE. Best, Agricola44 (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
Strong/Speedy Keep -- Agricola's noting of WorldCat book holdings is important. This is way beyond the norm for WP:PROF. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Recognized expert on history of the Roma. Carrite (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.