Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Waters

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. Big Dom 14:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Waters

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

Biographical article: Subject does not meet the GNG and fails WP:ANYBIO. Lack of reliable sources and no obvious Google hits. Pol430 talk to me 11:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More sources needed for his life, but subject matter could be notable Smithsonian (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as notable per se as former Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Gonzaga University. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The last paragraph of THIS SOURCE indicates that Fr. Waters was indeed made Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Gonzaga in 1983. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dave 16:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC) There is an extensive list of publicatons that can be verified. There is much supporting information on http://www.gonzaga.edu

I have to ask this question: Is the purpose of a Wiki article only to parrot what some other website already says? If someone has published all these works, not with a vanity publisher, isn't that significant? Here is a guideline for notability of an academic : The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society. Fr. Waters was a College Dean at Gonzaga. So the only counter argument is that either Dean of a College isn't a major post, or that Gonzaga isn't a major institution. I would like to see either of these specific qualifications argued, or else deletion of this article would be arbitrary and against Wiki guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidPersyn (talk • contribs) 16:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect some sort of bias in the nomination for removal of this page. I'm beginning to not want to put any effort into Wikipedia because of these deletion nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidPersyn (talk • contribs) 16:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peace, friend, this is a slam-dunk KEEP here. Carrite (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Dean is not the "highest level position" at Gonzaga, the president opf the university is. He may well be notable in other ways, but WP:PROF#C6 is a clear fail, very much the opposite of a slam-dunk. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Department heads of major universities have been regarded as fast Keeps in every AfD debate that I recall. "Highest level position" in this context does NOT mean University President. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They may often turn out to be keeps, but they are not keeps by that criterion alone. WP:PROF says explicitly "Lesser administrative posts (Provost, Dean, Department Chair, etc) are generally not sufficient to qualify under Criterion 6 alone." —David Eppstein (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It says "Highest Level ACADEMIC post, which is applicable. The President is the highest level ADMINISTRATIVE post. Words mean things, no? Dave 22:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Stop your WP:WIKILAWYERING and read the clear text of WP:PROF. Not just the part you are quoting, but the part later that explains what it means. No, he does not pass WP:PROF#C6. End of story. You need to find a different reason to keep the article. In any case, dean is just as much an administrative post as president. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I don't think he passes WP:PROF at all (let alone #C6; see above) but the discocraphy seems to indicate some notability as a composer. However, the article is badly sourced and indiscriminate, making it hard to tell for sure. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Thank you, Prof. Epstein, for the vote. I will continue to source things as I find online sources available and improve this over time, and hope others do the same in a true sense of collaborative effort. Perhaps then, his notability does come from musical publication, awards, etc. Again, in his milieu, documentation is hard to find, but I'll plug away at it. Dave 23:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I have reviewed, and believe that he meets the requirements of WP:COMPOSER #1 and #6, especially since listed in the French publication cited in the article. I would appreciate before deletion input from the classical music genre experts on the music side. Thanks! Dave 00:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Dave 00:18, 14 March 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.